U.K. takes down data showing footprint of nuclear vs. “renewables”

By |2013-11-02T14:17:16+00:00November 2nd, 2013|CFACT Europe|695 Comments

The U.K. plans to invest in new nuclear power following France’s lead, but breaking ranks with Germany and the big Green pressure groups.

The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change published this infographic, but then took it down.  Businesses reaping billions in subsidies from solar and wind deemed it “unhelpful.”

The facts according to the U.K. government?

Acres required to power 6 million homes:

Wind 250,000
Solar 130,000
Nuclear 430

The Daily Telegraph calls it “the infographic the U.K. government doesn’t want you to see.”

The U.K. should not only want you to see this, it should add in coal and gas as well.


  1. FrankSW November 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    Not verified but someone has pointed out this 430 acres include that used while building the plant, when complete the Hinkley Point footprint will fall to 160 acres

    • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 11:38 AM

      So it is smaller, who cares when nuclear cost more than Solar (of all flavors) and creates nuclear waste that must be dealt with for generations!


      In short, nuclear energy transforms ratepayers into nuclear energy slaves!

      • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        Oh yippee! A blog. What a wonderfully viable source for reliable information. Please stop polluting the thread with your politics.

        • CaptD September 26, 2014 at 1:33 PM

          Joe Dick – No politics mentioned, just a little reality for all those that consider using ☢ is a good deal for anyone except the Utility and its shareholders! BTW: If you think the France and China are bending over backwards to help the UK Utilities provide energy are great prices then you must be receiving some form of Nuclear Payback*

          * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

          Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

          • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 3:50 PM

            The link you provided was a blog, lacking in scientific content, and chock full of opinion.

            I support nuclear energy, and I receive no support from the industry. Therefore your claim to that end is at best completely wrong, an in the end is libelous. You should mind what you type.

            Urban dictionary as a reference. How quaint.

            Meanwhile, again I ask: Do you have a degree in science? Engineering? Medicine? Economics perhaps? If not, yappy little dogs should stay on the porch; you don’t have the chops to run with the big dogs.

            Type less, read more. Mind your baseless accusations.

          • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM

            Now, with respect to your concerns regarding cancer from radiation, fine. Solar panels involve extremely toxic carcinogens in their production, and contain these in and of themselves. Gallium arsenide, is but one of these.

            All products of high technology depend on complex chemical and atomic interactions to which life as we know it has not evolved tolerance, resistance or immunity. To blithly state, as you have, nuclear = evil and solar = purity is either hypocracy or ignorance of the highest order.

            To delve you you depths of distrust in a manner that treats both equally, which would you prefer? Three Mile Island or Love Canal? My answer is neither, and both, if managed properly, need not lead to such disasters.

            Meanwhile, nuclear powerplants are profitable, and harvest enough energy to make multiple copies of themselves; but I have yet to see a solar panel go off the grid with its own product.

            • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:30 AM

              Here is an excellent 3 minute video on radiation dangers/non dangers from someone NOT in the nuclear industry. She holds to the LNT line but she puts it into perspective.

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

              Why did Keawaunee did in a 14 cents per kwh retail enfvironment

              Bye bye Yankee, and good riddance

                • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:03 PM

                  @investigator, ya sure, I read everything that Conca writes…it is a hilarious simplistic playbook of the Bronto nuke industry. His shite was awesomely debunked too.

                  • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:43 PM

                    Could you provide the sources, easy to make claims, more difficult to back them up.
                    Perhaps it is just “shite” to you when the information doesn’t comport with your world view.

                    • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM

                      steveo, given your scientific background, I am a little surprised that you would direct me to a link whose sole contribution to this discussion is comments by unknown persons of unknown qualifications…hardly convincing.

                      As to the Forbes article, here was my response to Paul Gunter, renewable energy guru and champion of anti-nuclearism:

                      “Paul, can you explain why the phenomenon Mr. Cooper described in his article promising that electric rates won’t rise as a result of VY closing didn’t occur when San Onofre shut down? Just a few weeks after the shut down was announced, the public was informed that their rates would rise, and rise they did. Also, old natural gas plants were fired up to help replace the generation thrown away when San Onofre shut down. Is this fine with you? Are you interested in reducing fossil fuel dependence or only anti-nuclear?”

                      Others pointed out the weakness of the argument that reducing generation available, ie., because of shutting down VY, will somehow reduce energy costs. What? A shortage of supply = less costs? I think you would agree that despite Cooper’s convoluted logic on this, which admittedly may appeal to those who are against nuclear power, is so weak as to hold no water. The proof is in the pudding.

                • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 10:45 AM

                  The solar panel waste article says those disposal emissions are compensated for in 3 months, and solar is still a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas. It’s the best option short of local fusion and fission.

          • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 11:16 PM

            Wow. Aren’t you proud of your kind? You commented on Cleantechnica.com’s website and I thought maybe I could do there what you’ve done here. Nope! I’m banned from commenting on an article written by:

            Cynthia Shahan is an Organic Farmer, Classical Homeopath, Art Teacher, Creative Writer, Anthropologist, Natural Medicine Activist, Journalist, and mother of four unconditionally loving spirits, teachers, and environmentally conscious beings who have lit the way for me for decades.

            Wow. That’s telling. A website that caters to solar power and I’m banned from discussing anything? You with your all anti-nuclear agenda and you can’t say who you are, and I cant comment on a website that worships Elon Musk.

            Let’s just think about how deep that rabbit hole goes…

            Charles Manson much? 🙂

            • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:27 AM

              They banned me as well, at least I’m pretty sure it was cleantechnica. First time I posted, and I made a number of posts, I was booted pronto. No diversity of thought there.

          • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:50 PM

            Is the urban dictionary where you get your info from? It seems to be your favorite post, besides those bogus studies you like to hoodwink the unwary with.
            Those who oppose nuclear because of their philosophy, automatically support coal. Nuclear saves lives by NOT burning coal.
            So, Capt, care to comment on the fact that Soviet nukes (formerly aimed at us in America) were reprocessed and sold to America to use in our nuclear plants providing 10% of the electricity this country used? Was that a good thing? 10% from Soviet nukes, what is the grand total of solar and wind now?

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM

        Moses much? “Let my people go!” Where are the solar powered solar panel factories?

        You still haven’t answered my question: If it was renewable energy, they’d be first off the grid.

        Similarly, you haven’t answered my questions regarding your education. Science degree? Engineering degree? Economics? Chemistry? Medicine?

        You have accused all who disagree with you to be in the pay of nuclear power. Who pays your salary? Do you even have a career? Are you a shill?

        And you have yet to address the toxic agents and carcinogens associated with solar panel production…

        You have enough time to sit around and wait for your computer to go “ping!” after not having commented on this for over a year that it really does beg the question of who you are and why you are so full of zealously. No, you probabably went find that on the “Urban Dictionary” website yet in the way I mean it: you are zealous about being jealous of those that take the time to genuinely understand things.

        I pity people like you because you’re small. Its not your stature physically in life; it’s because you’re little in the mind. I recommend a bag of popcorn, a DVD of Cary Grant in “People Will Talk”, and a mirror to look yourself in the eye periodically throughout. If you don’t get it after that, you’re not ignorant, you’re just plain stupid – in which case, stand away from the internet access. Just walk away.

        • CaptD September 29, 2014 at 8:31 PM

          JoeDick – Solar R&D is still just getting started and in the time it takes to build even one new nuclear power plant Solar (of all flavors) will have evolved to the point that the nuclear energy will be far to expensive!
          Try sticking to the topic and leave out all the other comments, they are not only incorrect but a waste of time.

          • Joe Dick September 29, 2014 at 10:00 PM

            Ah, just getting started? Wrong. Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow. Its mature. I know. The Missile Defense Agency hired me as a consultant, as has Lockheed and Alenia regarding their abilities and use.

            If I told you more, as the saying goes, I’d have to kill you. If you went to real sources of information, like, um, I dunno, lemme see… College! instead of Wikipedia and new-age websites for your information, you’d have a clue about that.

            Now take your lithium and quit bullying people that have their shit together on websites the world over with your ill-informed ramble.

            • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM

              Joe Dick RE Your statement:

              “Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow.”

              That sounds much more like all those pushing new nuclear and/or Thorium reactors both of which are not yet proven despite what the nuclear cheerleaders say!

              BTW: New battery storage tech IS just getting started:

              Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory May Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says

              Many within the electric car industry believe that $100 per kilowatt-hour will be the tipping point for elec . . .

              http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094102_teslas-battery- .

              and There is yet another non Tesla BIG Factory going into production in Germany.

              • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:34 AM

                Oh hooray! Another news article that is little more than a press release. Gee whiz, they’re saying they will do a thing. Great. Call me from Missouri: Show me when it’s done. Until then you’re just a lot of hot air.

                • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:44 PM

                  Spot on! I think I’m from Missouri. CaptDishonest is from space.

              • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:23 PM

                You have no idea of what you are saying.
                A Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory. The powerful Green Party in Germany got it shut down permanently with a political campaign based on lies – but who cares, they know they cannot be wrong, so lies don’t count.
                But someone should have cared, because Germany is now in serious trouble with its energy policy because its huge outlay on wind power is not providing enough energy, the Greens won’t let them build nuclear, so now they are having to re-start and even BUILD……..coal-fired power stations, just to keep their industry going and the lights on.
                When these ignorant and self-regarding environmental groups start getting us all into trouble with their mad fantasies, it’s time to shut them out of policy-making discussions – for good.

                • CaptD October 31, 2014 at 6:46 PM

                  RE “Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory.”

                  If it was so wonderful, why did Siemens not just build they in other Countries?

                  Could it be that it was not anything close to being a commercially viable reactor?

                  • Peter October 31, 2014 at 8:26 PM

                    As usual, you avoid having to accede to an argument which clearly disproves your case by ranting on about new irrelevant claims as false as your original argument. It’s impossible to have a reasoned debate with you.
                    Your original claim was that “new nuclear and /or thorium reactors……are not yet proven”. When I present evidence that the thorium reactor is proven, you do not accept that you were wrong, you just spout more irrelevant and equally false rubbish.
                    In fact, many organisations round the world have bought licences from Siemens and a few have built successful demonstration reactors as proofs-of-principle as a basis for national power systems.
                    Why not take a few months off to really study the range of available nuclear technologies and the advantages, disadvantages and availability of possible nuclear fuels.

                  • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM

                    If solar is so great, how come it provides so LITTLE power in this country? Could it be it is not the panacea you believe it to be? They have been working on this for 40 years, where is it? Anybody seen the solar power yet?

                    • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

                      My bill went from 600 a month to 17 using PV solar….

                      over 30 years it pencils out to 2.94 cents per kwh

                    • Investigator January 4, 2015 at 10:57 PM

                      Come back in 30 years and we’ll check those figures, and besides, what home owner makes an investment that takes 30 years to pay off?
                      So, because YOU have the money to install solar and the poor do not, the subsidies you received are like a regressive tax. The poor help pay for your subsidy through the paying of taxes, while they receive NO benefit from your subsidy.
                      Just how much did the government kick in to supply you with power? Are you sure those panels will last 30 years? What do you do with those panels when they lose their efficiency, ie., how do you dispose of them? Think of the millions of people who would have to have roof top solar so equal the amount of generation from one dual unit nuclear power plant and what do we do with all those panels full of toxic heavy metals?

                    • steveo77 January 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM

                      The payback is 2.5 years, your talking points are already stale. they lose .25% per year.

                      Your metric of number of roof related to a $17B Vogtle farce is a no starter.

                      My subsidy is a reduction in the tax I pay. I generated $164,000 in tax revenue for govs last year…..and you bitch that I take $20,000 of my own money?

          • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:24 AM

            I am sticking to the topic. So should you: Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? There are none because it would never work. If you’re anti-nuke, fine; but don’t sell snake oil as a “solution”. We get it: CaptD is anti-nuke. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. A lot of us don’t agree with you, and we’ll continue to support clean nuclear energy.

            • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM

              Joe Dick I guess you did not get the memos:

              Tesla/SolarCity will build a new

              major solar panel factory in NY State


              Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory Will Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says http://disq.us/8kbwdg


              They (not Tesla) are also building a major battery factory in Germany!


              Since you might like Nuclear-News:

              International Energy Agency waking up to economy and efficiency of solar energy http://shar.es/1aFaGs

              • Joe Dick October 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM

                I guess you never studied physics or chemistry or engineering:

                1. Gee, you can build solar panels.

                2. No, solar panels don’t live long enough to make copies of themselves.

                3. Tesla’s solar panel factory will not be powered powered with it’s own product, will not be off the grid (see items 1 and 2).

                4. Tesla’s “Gigafactory” (…wait …trying …not …to …laugh ….BWAHAHAHAHAHA …whew …”Gigafactory” ..lol …okay) has yet to achieve this, and like most Musk promises is highly overstated.

                5. Germany too? Good for them. I’m so happy.

                Gee, you base all your sources on Eco-drivel websites and blogs …wait …trying …again …not …to …BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

                Wow. You are a real trip, man. You are a real trip. Get out of your mother’s basement much?

                • CaptD October 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM

                  Joe Dick Where to begin…

                  RE: “Musk promises is (sic) highly overstated”

                  Musk is so fr ahead of the power curve that he does not need to answer to guys like you that are stuck in the nuclear is so wonderful 1950’s…

                  Battery storage will only increase the shift to Solar (of all flavors), since the Utilities are pricing themselves out of the marketplace with “old school” energy like nuclear that will be too expensive in 20 to 30 years.

                  • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:04 PM

                    I never said Musk has to answer to me, CaptSPIN. Musk has to answer to the limits of physics, and those of that get that are laughing our butts off.

                    • CaptD October 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

                      Joe Dick When you and/or your “friends”(“and those of that get that”) become tech Billionaires, I bet people will start to listen to what you are saying, until then Zzzzzzz.

                    • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

                      Wow. What a repost. Is that what it takes for you to respect a person. So you can be bought! And he didn’t even send you a check. You a funny man!!!!

                    • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM

                      In other words, you want a billionaire to pretend to save your butt so you can continue to kiss his nether regions in a subservient repose for accomplishing nothing but scraping pennies off, a transaction at a time with Pay Pal?

                  • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:21 PM

                    Hey, you never did get back to me on those numbers I responded with from the US Energy Information Agency and The Wall Street Journal, demonstrating that with subsidies, solar is almost a buck eighty a kWh, but nuclear is about two and a half cents per kWh. So solar is what, about eighty times more expensive? Good luck with that. Thorium rocks! 🙂

                  • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:49 AM

                    Seriously, you don’t get that Musk makes money on carbon credits? Pencil it out. Its not the cars…

                  • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:56 PM

                    Yea, Musk is stuck in the 1970s pie in the sky solar is our savior. What happened to that solar? Can’t make the sun shine during the night? Awe, nuclear works day or night, wind or no wind, it is cheap, safe, reliable, doesn’t pollute, no GHGs, it is our best energy source currently available.
                    Capt., what did you say the capacity factor for solar was? 20%? Nuclear is at 90%. You sure are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren’t so dishonest, I’d ask you to join me in supporting our best energy source.

                  • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 9:27 PM

                    Nuke is too expensive now, they are dropping like flies

            • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM

              Joe, the Capt. has trouble with the truth. He posts bogus studies he hopes nobody will catch him on, then when he’s caught, he simply slinks off to another site to post the same crap. He is absolutely shameless.

          • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:41 PM

            More excuses for solar. We’ve been hearing this crappola for 40 years from the likes of Ralph Nader et al. Wheres the beef?
            Expend your efforts making solar power a reality, not attacking nuclear. Convey that message to your handlers in FOE, perhaps they may decide to contribute for the better of this nation instead of the reverse.

            • CaptD October 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM

              Nuclear has “attacked” US by not living up to their Industries “almost free SAFE” energy generation they promised us when they pushed it usage, instead it has turned out to be nothing but a Industry moneymaker that shifts all costs to their ratepayers who are “enslaved” because they have no choice but to pay for over priced ☢ Energy, then their is the cost of Long term Waste disposal and possible RISK of Fukushima to consider.

              Ask The Japanese people how wonderful N☢ is longterm.

              • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM

                CaptD, you have stepped into your own doodoo.
                Fukushima was NOT a nuclear catastrophe.. The reactors did not run up to a nuclear explosion even though the plant electricity supply failed and stopped the coolant pumps..
                The plant should never have been built on a geological fault but even when an earthquake and a tsunami wrecked the plant, the built-in safe design prevented a nuclear explosion..

                • CaptD October 31, 2014 at 6:50 PM

                  Ha Ha Ha

                  I guess you don’t consider the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster a nuclear disaster, funny the Japanese people sure do!

                  BTW: Any idea where the 3 missing reactor corium(s) are that are helping pollute the Pacific Ocean with all the highly ☢ water they are using to try and keep them cool?

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

                  ??????????? are you freakin serious? Get the facts, at least 3 meltdowns, at least 3 explosions and at least reactor 3 was a moderated prompt criticality, aka nuclear explosion.


              • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:05 AM

                What a liar! Yea, ask the Chinese how they liked their river polluted by the local solar panel construction company.

                Or here with ecological disaster caused by wind turbine blade manufacturing.

                Ask T Boon Pickens about wind power where as he stated “I lost my ass in wind power.”


              • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:51 PM

                Agreed, nuklear sucks more than the pronuke pimps on this board.

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:20 AM

            Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this crap since the 1970s don’t tell me this “still just getting started” baloney. Took them 40 years to get started? How long did it take France to ramp up its nuclear program? France builds 30 or 40 nuclear power plants and in that time solar is just getting its pants on. Yea, come back in 20 years, solar will have its shoes on then.

            • CaptD November 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM

              Ha Ha Ha

              Better take another look, France (whose EDF nuclear industry is partially owned by the Gov’t.) is now even scaling back new French nuclear and is having problems funding decommissioning the one they have, which has required them to add an extra decommissioning tax to try and help pay the ever increasing bills.

              Those Countries downwind from France are now worried that France is extending aged reactors usage too far and that could cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima in Europe!

              • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

                CaptD I think you are wasting your time here, these gollums chasing their precious are lost for all causes.

                • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:30 PM

                  Please CaptDishonest, take the clarifier’s word for it. You cannot hoodwink the audience here and your bogus studies won’t fly. Guess you’ll have to move on to greener and more gullible audiences.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM

            “… just getting started…”
            Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this solar fantasy since the 1970’s. Quit making lame excuses for solar’s failure to live up to the hype or the expensive we lavish on it.
            What do we do with all those solar panels when they lose their efficiency?

            • CaptD January 3, 2015 at 12:40 PM

              Solar panels are lasting far longer than expected and like everything else (dry soon if not already) they will be recycled all without any radioactive waste or DANGER.

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM

        Seriously? You pounce within hours relative to your year off from this discussion. Engage m in discussion, prove you thesis, and bring your frontal lobes and your ballsy attitude to the party. My name is Joe Dick, and amongst the many things I’ve done to improve the world is to lay my cards and information on the world-wide table that is the internet by accepting Scientific American’s challenge to write a on their site, despite the name. I

        Instead of running away, stand up like a man an defend your “position” whatever it may be. With all due respect to those who must be witness to this, your intrusion, and my now response to it, you are an intellectual pussy.

        You have an argument and real data to support it? Bring it.

        To go your attitude one better, meet me, online. I’m sure the folks ’round here can arrange a proper debate. A suppusedly unknown punk like you shouldn’t have a thing to loose!

        To use the vernacular, “C’mon bitch! Get in the game!”. I am sick to death of pansy ass queers (hey queer means strange, sorry about your luck) saying shit they cannot back up. Go read ” Helium Hokum ” and quit taking the easy way out.

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:24 PM

        By the way, still waiting for your response in any level of detail; and you do know, one can readily chase your other commentary down an make you look a fool. So again, rise to the intellectual challenge. You said I was in the employ of the nuclear industry; I want everyone to see you as you are: in your mama’s basement or as a paid-for toll.

        Bring it, you self-serving cunt. (Apologies to the viewers.)

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:45 AM

        Oh look, do respond to this! How is it that solar costs 82 cents per kilowatt-hour with subsidies of 90 cents on top of that for $1.72 per, and most of us pay less than a tenth of that, and would pay even less if we weren’t paying for one of your favorite causes. Get paid to propaganda much, you nameless f?

        • CaptD October 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

          Nuclear and Coal are the kings of subsidies, when cradle to grave costs are included, nice try, peddle your Nuclear Baloney* (NB)

          * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+Baloney elsewhere!

          • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 3:19 PM

            LOL. Solar subsidies are 90 cents per kilowatt-hour and cost $1.72 per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and Coal pay for themselves. Nuclear is the cheapest form of energy generation we have.

            I gave you the references and asked the question multiple times. When you finally do respond, you’re the one that resorts to name-calling.

            The information I provided is not “nuclear baloney”. Until you can carry on an enlightened discussion instead of spewing propaganda, why don’t you just shut the hell up and go the hell away? I’m laughing! At you!

            “You are a fluke of the universe.
            You have no right to be here.
            And whether you can hear it or not,
            The universe is laughing behind your back.”

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM

              hey shit for brains….Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii, nuclear is in the 62 to 92 cent range depending on how you handle long term storage.

              You got game, bring it….with facts and links….


              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:56 PM

                You call that link factual? It is crap! Considering the huge subsidies to solar, if it is so great, why isn’t everybody jumping on the band wagon?
                Why is Ivanpah Solar Power Plant doing so poorly and burning NG more than 4 times what they initially claimed they would be doing? It is another solar LOSER!

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 9:28 PM

                  It is not crap, this is real data.

                  Why lie about Ivanpah…..their NG usage is 60% more, spread out over 4 hours……so you lie….to protect your “precious”, god save you.

                  PS everyone is jumping on the solar bandwagon….hence the need for the nuke pimps to attack solar, got it, user

                  • Investigator January 4, 2015 at 10:06 PM

                    Yea, and they claimed they would only need to burn NG for an hour. 4 X 1 = 60% in your book? Not a math major are you.

                    Seen this Chinese city polluted by solar panel manufacturing…and the pollution is just from normal operations, no titanic natural disasters required.


                    How about the wind turbine blade manufacturing pollution? Would you like to turn our US cities into this?






                    What are these wind company executives trying to hide? Seems wind driven profits, almost wholly from subsidies, trump transparency and the environment.

                    The solar panel manufacturing executives are just as evasive.




                    I was NOT initially against wind and solar power, but the dishonesty from their promoters, like CaptDishones here, have been driving me away from the UNreliables.

                    • steveo77 January 4, 2015 at 10:39 PM

                      Yo asshat, read the resources, they applied for variance to buy 60% more Natty. got it? They thought they were going to burn 1 EFL hour, now they are 60% above that.

                      troll ye be

                    • CaptD January 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM

                      Spot On Comment.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:03 PM

                      Did you forget the part about:

                      “for the eight-month period from January through August, its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.”

                      or this:

                      “They added that “auxiliary boilers typically need to operate an average of approximately 4.5 hours a day during startup (an increase from 1 hour daily average originally expected).”

                      or here:

                      “BrightSource can burn a total of 1,575 million standard cubic feet of natural gas every year. To get a sense of that volume, an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant might be expected to produce about 200,000 MWh from 1,575 mmcf of gas, according to the EIA.”

                      or here:

                      “The article noted that the trio of Ivanpah owners had sought extensions on repaying their loans as they waited to receive a cash grant from the U.S. Treasury worth 30 percent of the plant’s cost…”

                      or here:

                      “That relatively small output, combined with the project’s $2 billion price tag, could no doubt hurt all three Ivanpah owners.”

                      or here:

                      “Power tower projects in the U.S. have been falling by the wayside; most recently, BrightSource shelved plans to build a single-tower, 500-megawatt plant in Palen, California with Abengoa, despite having waged a lengthy campaign to get the project approved. For now at least, there seems little appetite for such giant projects among the California utilities that were being counted on to buy their power.”

                      CaptDishonest can comment on this last one in respect to his mantra of “solar of all flavors.”

                      or here:

                      The Mojave Desert plant, built with the aid of a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee…its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.

                      All this doesn’t paint a pretty picture of Ivanpah. I am for what works regardless of the source. However, I have consistently seen solar fantasy folks pushing our energy policy toward solar BEFORE it has proven itself. Indeed, that is precisely why FORMER anti-nukes wised up and left the solar fantasy for nuclear reality. For anti-nukes who may be reading this, remember, the makers of Pandora’s Promise, who were leaders in anti-nuclear community, were where you are now; perhaps some day soon you will be where they are.

                    • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 10:16 PM

                      The makers of Pandora Promise are lying manipulating asshats. They should be tried for a crime against humanity.

                      NUke lies,Nukes blows up and covers up. Nuke has a firm track history of failure.

                      When you combine humans and nuke you have a recipe for disaster.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:02 PM

                      Take a deep breath steveo, no need for hyperventilating. Did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong? They believed in the solar fantasy, just like you. They discovered that what they had formerly believed, was NOT true.

                    • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:13 PM

                      Not true, Iv guy, 3 cents per kWH with tax credits….if you make money to pay tax, you have to pay less.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:35 PM

                      So, did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong?

                    • steveo77 January 8, 2015 at 7:14 PM

                      By supporting nuke, or yeah….and by pretending to present a balanced opinion, and then falling into all the classic lies of nuke 93 of them by my count.

                    • Michael Mann August 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM

                      steveo77/PacE/NukePro/Frank Energy and whatever other alias you are using today, using the same profanity tips people off who you really are, that and the fact you tend to send people to your personal website.. Avast ye, think I’ve located the one attempting to deceive people here… Maybe the fact you sell solar installations may be influencing your viewpoint, could that be why you accuse others of having ulterior motives? Is it a thought out tactic to accuse others in an attempt to avoid suspicion, or is it just an assumption that if you do it, everyone must be doing it?

                    • PacE August 24, 2015 at 4:50 PM

                      Wow a motivated troll, replying to comments from 8 months ago.

                      Liars don’t deserve politeness, I’ll go all blanch on you.

                  • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:08 PM

                    I think you better stop drinking “FLUORIDE”

                  • David Whitmore January 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM

                    “… Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii… ”

                    You neglect to mention that most of the folks in Hawai’i with personally-owned solar panels on their homes are not allowed to connect their homes to the solar panels (already on their roofs) because the State-owned electric power company forbids them to. The latest excuse is that the digital power meters can’t function properly when the home owner is generating more electricity than they use.

                    Many folks (in the 48 continental States) that I know are checking out home solar panels. And, after having to spend tens of $1000s to have it installed, it turns out that they will save approximately $20 a month off their electric power bill.
                    Fantastic! Right?

                    Lest we not forget Spain; that Solar power plant our fearless leader has pushed the utility companies to model their own construction of… It is going bankrupt, or went bankrupt; and is causing even more disruption to the faltering Spanish economy. Is that the kind of successful Solar Power System we need here?

              • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 12:34 AM

                Well, there’s an intelligent way to address someone in a conversation. And I see that you chose to use a .blogspot as a source; that’s pretty reliable. I’ll stick with the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/09/23/stop-subsidizing-solar-power/ Apparently your pencil needs sharpening. Solar gets 96 cents per kWh in subsidies, so if solar in Hawaii as you suggest costs 3 cents per kWh net, the real cost would be 3 cents + 96 cents = 99 cents per kWh.

                • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 12:02 PM

                  You really are a dick. Read the data, or just spew ad hominems………….I know your choice

                  The data shows that in Hawaii solar gets a total 65% tax credit. That means that is the remainder is 3cents, that the 65% presents a 6 cents subsidy. Solar with no subsidies is then 9 cents, and it stays at 9 cents for 30 years.

                  And yes people are flocking to it.

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM

                    Oh, now there is a truly intelligent response! I’m a “dick”. ROFLMAOCDBIGQ! Oh, in case you need a full translation, “rolling on floor laughing collecting dust bunnies in great quantities”. Try again, “Clarifier”. “Clarifier”. Wow. How… No, wait… no… Muahhhahahahhhahahahhahahahah.

                    Okay, try again, and please, use some intelligence. (Like that’s going to happen! HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAahhhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhhahahah!

                  • Joe Dick January 8, 2015 at 4:30 PM

                    Well, I provided a source with my data. Forbes, which backed up their data with sources.

                    If anyone is spewing anything here, it’s you. No sources for your numbers.

                    And gee, you still have my family name in your mouth. You must really like that.

                  • greenthinker2012 January 17, 2015 at 5:27 PM

                    You call him a “dick” and “shit for brains” and then complain about ad hominem attacks?!?

            • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:06 PM

              Yes unfortunately we have these “Political correct” Bafoons, who watch too much Jewivision, The slave makers,

            • Brian Donovan September 22, 2015 at 4:39 PM

              Nuclear is the most expensive. Nuclear cant’ run one second without gov protection from liability.

              Where does solar get 90 cents? LOL!

              The universe is laughing in your face.

              • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 7:40 PM

                You’re right. Solar doesn’t get 90¢ per kilowatt-hour. It gets 96¢. http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-905

                • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM

                  Sure it is. where? your document say nothing of the sort. At least the referenced one.

                  In fact, why don’t you read the comments to your link. They point out the logical errors the article made and you too.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:34 PM

                    Yawn. Demonstrate the errata, don’t claim it exists. Show me how you calculate the subsidies per kilowatt-hour. I dare ya. Or is that beyond your ability, lad?

                • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:16 PM

                  BTW, in no way shape or form did they get a subsidies that was base on their KWH produced, that was 96 cents or anything like that.

                  You see, you lied, you try to deceive, and the WSJ helped.

                  Joe Dick, you live down to your name, yet again.

                  • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 8:29 PM

                    What a witty riposte! I am utterly defeated by your making fun of my name – not!

                    If you follow the links, it all leads back to Department of Energy data, and behind that the GAO. Sorry about your luck! Hate to cloud your issues with the facts!

                    • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM

                      Just list the reference., It’s not there. THE DOE is the old atomic energy commission and still 90% nuclear.

                      go ahead, you linked, you data is not there.

                    • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:28 PM

                      Try reading, and applying some basic math skills.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:31 PM

                    Sorry about your luck. Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour produced are exactly what they say they are: Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour. Sorry for you that you can’t get a simple thing like that.

                  • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 7:59 PM

                    Pity you don’t pay attention to the new posts.

              • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 7:56 PM

                Make that 96.8¢ per kilowatt-hour.

                Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
                Coal $0.0006
                Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $0.0006
                Nuclear $0.0031
                Renewables $0.0154
                Biomass Power $0.0020
                Geothermal $0.0125
                Hydroelectric $0.0008
                Solar $0.9680
                Wind $0.0525


                • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:37 AM

                  Your link divides subsidies by 1 year of solar pv system KWH that will produce by 30 years. so the real number is 3 cents. ops.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM

                    The information provided is clear. 96¢ paid per kilowatt hour produced.

                • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:42 AM

                  BTW, did you know you link it so a bunch climate deniers?

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:24 PM

                    Write complete sentences much? Yikes! LOL

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 9:12 PM

                    Have another deep draw from that bong. Watch the pretty bubbles filled with smoke. Now hold it in. Hold it! Try not to cough! Okay, now exhale and try writing that sentence again. It will be even more spectacular, I’m sure. For us, not you.

                  • Brian Donovan September 27, 2015 at 12:22 AM

                    Notice the nonsense reply.

                  • Joe Dick September 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM

                    Climate deniers? Do you know anyone that doesn’t think there’s a climate? I certainly don’t.

                • Brian Donovan October 1, 2015 at 9:05 PM

                  Funny, they count 1 year of the 30 years life of solar.

                  That makes it’s less than 3 cents.

                  you knew that, right?

                  • Joe Dick October 1, 2015 at 11:57 PM

                    Did they? Or did you just read that somewhere? Let’s talk about how people are finally getting wise about subsidies in the UK and cutting snake-oil waste. Equivalent to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour, and they’re complaining and whining because their subsidies are going to be cut. And you doubt the 96¢ per kilowatt-hour? If people are upset about no longer getting paid over 12 pence per kilowatt-hour, can solar really be viable?

                  • Joe Dick October 2, 2015 at 12:01 AM

                    This is just homeowners, being paid to install solar panels. If they whine about getting cut off from “free” Government “money”, just think about how the whole house of cards will tumble.

                  • Brian Donovan October 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM

                    Notice, when the pro nuclear folks are caught, they just change the subject.

                    They keep claiming solar would collapse without gov breaks, when it’s nuclear that would stop in one second without gov protection and support. Gov pays for the wastes, the mining wastes, the decommissioning, backs the loans, does the research for nuclear and has for 60 years.

                    Nuclear without gov? shut down in 1 second.

                    Get it?

                  • Brian Donovan October 2, 2015 at 3:21 PM

                    Notice he doesn’t really reply.

                    • Michael Mann October 2, 2015 at 6:08 PM

                      Notice Brian replies to himself…

                    • Ike Bottema October 3, 2015 at 11:30 PM

                      Perhaps he thinks that makes his perceptions reality. Reality is that his perceptions are, at best, misguided, at worst, lies.

              • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:35 PM

                Please demonstrate these assertions with calculations.

          • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:37 PM

            CaptDishonest, What is next, going to post those bogus studies from Yablokov again or have you decided to do the honest thing and either attempt to defend them or concede they are crap? Yea, the honest thing is a tall order for you.

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:12 AM

            What are the subsidies for nuclear? Without subsidies, wind doesn’t exist and who would pay the entire $30 grand to put solar on their roof?
            You were not a math major were you?

          • Nigel Deacon December 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM

            I often get emails telling me that fossil fuels in the UK are subsidised.

            This is incorrect. Fossil fuels are not subsidised; they receive certain tax breaks.

            A subsidy means money goes from the government to the company.

            A tax break means that money goes from the company to the government.

            The money flows in different directions.

            • CaptD December 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM

              I’m not trying to play the word games.

              I know in the US that the Nuclear Industry gets lots of “benefits” (which most refer to as “subsidies”) for things like the Government dealing with the long term storage of nuclear waste and the Price-Anderson Act which shifts the Cost or Risk of major nuclear accidents from the Utilities to the US Government!

              In the later case should something BAD happen such as a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima, everything over the first 12 Billion Dollars would be dealt with by the US Government (put upon the taxpayers).

              So despite what it is called the nuclear Industry receives “benefits” without which they would never be cost competitive, especial against Solar (of all flavors) whose prices are falling almost monthly and have no RISK like nuclear.

              • Edward Coyle December 28, 2014 at 3:31 AM

                You are absolutely right. They get loan subsidies because no one in there right mind would ever fund a nuclear power plant so, uncle Sam does.

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:34 PM

                  You mean the unwilling citizens of the USA does

                • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:15 PM

                  So did Ivanpah, but unlike Ivanpah, the nuclear plants live up to their name plate generation AND work day or night, wind or no wind.

                  Did you see this?


                  • bosshead February 23, 2015 at 2:08 PM

                    you meant day and night. sorry thank you.

                • Haut September 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM

                  Nuclear is natural, in terms of fusion. it is the answer,

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:14 PM

                What a lier! The government dealing with long term storage of used nuclear fuel…horse manure! The nuclear plants pay for this and rate payers through their utility bills!

                Because anti-nukes opposed Yucca Mt., the nuclear plants sued the government for not living up to their end of the deal and thus are no longer paying for Yucca Mt.

                The Price Anderson Act is similar to what the government does for many large scale operations. Nuclear Plants have their own insurance which covers about 300 Million. Additionally, all nuclear plants pay into a fund which now stands about 13 Billion. Should an accident occur that exceeds the initial 300 Million, the fund would pay the rest. Only after all these funds have been exhausted does the Federal Government step in. No accident in America has ever required funds in excess of that initial private insurance each nuclear plant has.

                see here:

                United States law requires payment of 8 cents per barrel of oil to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for all oil imported or produced. For this payment, operators of offshore oil platforms (among others) are limited in liability to $75 million for damages (which can be paid by the fund), but are not indemnified from the cost of cleanup. As of 2010, before payouts related to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, the fund stood at $1.6 billion.[8]

                It should be noted that the federal government provides similar insurance mechanisms for other types of disasters, such as floods; agricultural disasters; banks and savings and loan company failures; home mortgages; and maritime accidents. Liability limits also exist for oil spills; bankruptcy; worker’s compensation; and medical malpractice.

                The costs of this insurance are borne by the industry, unlike the corresponding costs of some other power sources. Costs from hydropower mishaps, such as dam failure and resultant flooding, for example, are borne directly by the public. The 1977 failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho caused $500 million in property damage, but the only compensation provided to those affected was about $200 million in low-cost government loans.

                The Price-Anderson Act is a consumer- and public-oriented legislation. It provides a substantial amount of insurance protection paid by the commercial sector at no cost to the public or the government.

                Solar panel manufacturing and wind turbine blade manufacturing are VERY dirty process and are so as a matter of business, no accidents are required for these polluters.

                • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM

                  Yo azzhat, do you think anyone believes that $13B would even be close to covering a nuclear accident in USA?

                  USGOV predicted that an accident at Cook in Michigan could cause $620B in direct damages.

                  That aint insurance it is eye wash

                  • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM

                    Oh really? Just how long has Price Anderson been around? How much has the government shelled out in payments due to accidents? ZERO! Zero is a long way from $620 Billion and the industry is getting close to 60 years old in this country.

                    How much are we going to shell out for solar plants that don’t even live up to their 25% capacity factor? What is the nuclear industry’s capacity factor? 90%, and it doesn’t rely on unreliable wind, or day light. It is safe, clean, economical, and is currently the best energy source to power this nation and the world.

                    Do you see or read this?


                  • Christian Abel May 12, 2015 at 8:24 PM

                    What kind of accident do you imagine?

                    What kind of damages would a nuclear accident cause?

                    (FUD does NOT count as damages unless you are a bigot.)

                    • Hqs63 May 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM

                      ca ressemble furieusement a du TKM , ca !

                    • Christian Abel May 14, 2015 at 9:48 AM

                      Il parle de quoi, le connard?

                    • steveo77 June 22, 2015 at 1:30 AM

                      LOl throwing out bigot is a hilarious pre-ad-hominem out of the gate

                      Japan is experiencing 10% loss of GDP for 10 years. It may take down their country.

                      Loss of business income
                      Loss of farm and farm income
                      Loss of fixed assets
                      Loss of faith in government
                      Loss of confidence
                      Loss of health
                      Loss of life
                      Loss of electrical generation
                      Loss of credibility in “low risk”

                    • Christian Abel June 22, 2015 at 5:42 AM

                      None of the above is caused by nuclear accidents (except destroyed plant “asset”), only bad gov

                    • Nuke Pro June 22, 2015 at 10:26 PM

                      How stupid is that? Go clean up Fukushima little boy

                    • Christian Abel June 23, 2015 at 10:21 PM

                      Clean up what exactly?

                    • Nuke Pro June 23, 2015 at 11:08 PM

                      The coriums for starters.

                    • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:18 PM

                      Nuclear Fusion will save the world, but can,t have free energy right? Ask Nicola Tesla.

                  • SA Kiteman August 9, 2015 at 10:46 AM

                    The only accident in the USA (TMI) did not exceed the private insurance amount and never even reached into the mutual liability clause. Since nuclear plants are much safer now than then, it seems unlikely that such an accident will come to pass.

                    A plant may, thru some mechanism, melt down. But it will not spread appreciable quantities of radio-isotopes.

              • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:16 PM

                I,ve come to the conclusion after reading your posts, that people like you are a danger to society, I bet you would like to be a Polititian too. How much do they pay to be a TROLL?

                • CaptD September 17, 2015 at 6:21 PM

                  Haut — Is that the best reply you can post, a cheap shot and some name calling? FLAGGED for your poor effort.

                  BTW: Who cares about your personal “conclusions”, since that are not based on any factual links or even a good response reply… Talk to yourself much?

                  • Haut September 18, 2015 at 8:20 PM

                    I know immence knowledge on solar activity, I,m a Meteorologist, I,m also an undergraduate in qualitive physics, Like I said before Nuclear Fusion is the answer, much work is being done, despite the sabotage from Zionist media & controled economic banksters.

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM

              thats a silly ass game of semantics. A tax credit is a subsidy, slam dunk. Spin don’t win. We aren’t stupid.

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

                Then you must be absolutely against wind and solar because they don’t exist without subsidies.
                Also, a loan guaranty is NOT the same thing as a subsidy and is NOT a matter of semantics.

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 8:58 PM

                  Silly ass comment, I am not against subsidies that encourage a beneficial and fledgling industry.

                  A loan guarantee is indeed the worst form of subsidy since it put the taxpayer 100% on the hook. A risky business would be loan insurance. A country killing business like nuclear could never be insured….how do you insure a trillion dollar loss and 50 years of lawsuits on top of that?

                • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 10:58 AM

                  A Congressional Budget Office issue brief on federal financial support for energy development noted that “Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent.” CBO further explained:

                  Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun, which generally cause less environmental damage than would result from producing and consuming fossil fuels. Provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences in 2011. However, four of those provisions, including the one with the greatest budgetary impact, expired at the end of calendar year 2011. Only four major tax preferences are permanent, three of which are directed toward fossil fuels and one of which is directed toward nuclear energy.


                  • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 12:25 PM

                    Cees, when a link continually attributes what it considers ‘bad things’ to the “right wing media” it loses some credibility. The myths and facts section look like skewed talking points. For example, on bird deaths, if they are so small as to be negligible, then why do these companies do this?


                    Also, I believe the real issue is not so much with absolute numbers of deaths, but on the kinds of birds, raptors, some of whom are endangered.

                    Although I am highly skeptical of claims regarding EM field dangers from power lines, or wind turbine flicker causing harm, I will say that in a documentary I saw on Netflix a few years ago where they had a long 10 second or so shot out the back window showing the flicker and it was quite irritating to view even for that 10 seconds or so. What I am saying is that until you experience that flicker, one cannot make an accurate judgement as to whether folks should be subjected to that kind of irritation.

                    Here are some links to consider:



                    Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

                    Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

                    Pollution from wind turbine blade manufacturing:











                    There is certainly far more I could present but this should be sufficient for now. Just look at the land usage in the article we’re all responding to, 250,000 acres of wind farms = 430 acres of nuclear. THAT, is a non-decision.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 7:54 PM

                      Whoa, i didn’t ask for any of that off-topic spam (i’ve seen it many times on your profile). I simply countered your statement that wind is nothing without subsidies with a more credible statement.

                    • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:46 AM

                      “I simply countered your statement that wind is nothing without subsidies with a more credible statement.”

                      It would help if you provided a link that supported your “more credible statement.” If you are right, it certainly isn’t reflected in the link you supplied which is what I was responding to and which you said was “off-topic spam.”


                      Here is a quote from the report:

                      The appetite for building wind projects in Vermont has tapered off in recent years.

                      A combination of factors — the end of federal stimulus money, uncertain reauthorization of federal incentives, difficulties in connecting to the grid, competition with solar and local opposition — have shelved at least two projects and left three others lying dormant.”

                      The report goes on to suggest that wind power “might be poised to catch its second wind.”

                      Here is more:

                      “The project would not be built if there were no subsidies equivalent to at least 50% of the capital cost. Without subsidies, the wind energy produced would be at least $0.15/kWh delivered to the grid.

                      The project has everything to do with grabbing as much federal subsidies as possible and “coursing” them through Vermont’s economy for the short-term benefit of the well-connected few (including high-income, non-Vermonters looking for tax shelters and foreign companies supplying wind turbines), at the long-term economic expense (higher electric rates) of the many.

                      Over the past 10 years, the subsidies for wind turbine facility owners have become so excessive that facilities are built in marginal wind areas, as on most Vermont ridge lines, or before facilities are built to transmit the wind energy to population centers, as in the Texas Panhandle, just to cash in on the lucrative subsidies. Here is a partial list of subsidies:

                      – Federal grant for 30% of the total project cost which also applies to Spanish, Danish, German and Chinese wind turbines thus creating jobs in those nations instead of the US. These nations would not dream to have such a measure benefitting US wind turbine companies.

                      – Federal accelerated depreciation allowing the entire project to be written off in five years which is particularly beneficial to wealthy, high-income people looking for additional tax shelters.”

                      I apologize that at this time I can’t find the link where I copied this from but I feel quite certain it was regarding Green Mountain Power.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 10, 2015 at 6:27 AM

                      CBO can be googled, and even the text at your link mentions uncertain subsidies:
                      “For now, solar is dominating the renewable energy landscape in Vermont.
                      And unlike solar — which can ride on a federal tax credit for
                      residential projects until 2017 — similar incentives for large-scale
                      wind remain intermittent and uncertain.”

                      And your text itself merely proves that subsidies help to build things, which is why the subsidies for oil are incredibly high now that you’re mining tar sands.

                    • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:02 PM

                      see here for an article in March of 2013:


                      Also, I did find where you got your (CBO) information but am unsure as to whether you saw the Institute for Energy Research rebuttal. Here is the link:


                      On your quote regarding the 4 permanent provisions 3 of which go to FF & one to nuclear, we find the following rebuttal in the IER response:

                      “Comment: The Production Tax Credit for wind was first instituted in 1992 by the Energy Policy Act of that year and has been extended 8 times. Its current extension is through the end of this year and was legislated by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. However, while expiring at the end of 2013, any wind farm that begins construction in 2013 will have 10 years of tax credits coming once it begins operation. The original law and the previous extensions mandated that the wind farm begin operation before the tax credit was to sunset. The Investment Tax Credit for solar energy originated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978 and was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                      The tax deductions that the oil and gas industry receive mainly affect the independent oil and gas producers that explore and drill for oil in marginal wells. These tax deductions are akin to those that businesses receive for depreciation (percentage depletion allowance) and research and development (expensing of intangible drilling costs). All businesses receive the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, but the oil and gas industry can only claim a 6 percent deduction of its profits, while all other manufacturers can deduct 9 percent. Removal of the later tax deduction will force oil and gas companies to move overseas for their investments in exploratory drilling, increasing imports of energy while shifting jobs abroad.”

                      Cees, to conclude, let me repeat that I am for what works. I want California and the country to pursue an energy policy that insures grid stability while maintaining costs low, AND to be environmentally clean. Those are 3 parts of the energy equation that often compete with one another. I believe in full transparency regarding all aspects of each energy source, a transparency equal to what the nuclear industry is forced to provide. Championing one energy source at the expense of others is not wise (being against an energy source). A house divided cannot stand.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 10, 2015 at 6:27 PM

                      20e9 USD was 3% of your defense budget in 2013. I think the war for oil security was a worse idea than investing more in energy efficiency and sustainability. Thankfully LED, Aerogel, and PV are now cheap enough for consumers, but instead of duplicating work on JSF and such, why not research better battery tech? AAs and others still require maintenance lest they leak or die, the grid can’t handle wind park excesses and general dropouts, and thorium reactors are still experimental in India.

                    • VACornell January 22, 2016 at 2:24 PM

                      Please tell me where are the subsidies for oil and gas…
                      Show them to me!…
                      …I would like to believe they need none…
                      That’s competition..
                      Let’s go compete…!,

                    • Cees Timmerman January 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM

                      “Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion per year. ” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
                      According to the cited source the countries include India, China, Indonesia, and the Middle-East.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM
            • Sam Gilman August 15, 2015 at 8:51 PM

              It’s fiscally the same thing, just “distributed” through a different mechanism. Look up “tax expenditure”. To call tax breaks a form of subsidy isn’t a controversial thing to do.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:57 PM

            More crap from the king of dishonesty. Are you still posting those bogus studies?

          • SA Kiteman February 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM

            In the USA, nuclear gets about 1/5th the subsidies of the unreliables while producing twice the energy. And the majority of “subsidy” for nuclear is for R&D on things they don’t really want or for regulatory burden they would prefer to do without.

            • CaptD February 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM

              SA K – I don’t think you are including all the “things that remain behind the ☢ curtain” like the Price Anderson Act shielding the nuclear industry from BIG lawsuits and/or long term waste storage just to mention a few…

              • SA Kiteman March 4, 2015 at 7:49 AM

                Price Anderson does not shield the industry from “BIG” lawsuits or any other size. It requires the each lant get the maximum insurence that any buisiness of any type can get. It then makes the INDUSTRY TOGETHER libel for the next big chunk of indemnification. After that, Congress will decide what to do. Of course, the biggest accident in the US didn’t even reach the maximum plant insurance limit. PAA is hardly a subsidy.

                Are you totally UNaware of the fact that the industry has put over 28BILLION dollars into a government fund to handle the PUFF (previously used fission fuel)? That is in excess of what the government has spent out of that fund for Yucca Mt. On this point, the industry is subsidizing the government.

                • CaptD March 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM

                  SAK – NOT FACTUAL ==> Anything over $12 Billion is N☢T Covered by the Price Anderson Act, so all US taxpayers would be “on the hook”.

                  BTW: $12 Billion is a drop in the bucket if something like Fukushima occurs since it is more like a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster.

                  RE: “the industry has put over 28BILLION dollars into a government fund” you forgot to mention that the Industry got the money from their ratepayers, so the Industry did not pay the money, but they probably wrote it off their taxes… ;-0

                  • SA Kiteman March 4, 2015 at 7:58 PM

                    Sorry, YOU are not factul. Beyond $12B it is up to Congress to decide. The knowlegable folk suspect it will never need to be decided since the likelyhood of such an incidence here in the US is infinitesimal. But _IF_ (and it is a BIG “if”) but IF it happens, the knowledgible folk expect Congress to just extend the mutual liability.

                    Well duhhh! Of course the industry got their payments from the rate payer. EVER industry gets their expenses from their customers, except the unrelibles that get much of their $ from direct subsidies. Do you have a problem with Walmart making enough money from their customers to pay their taxes and licencing fees? Why should the nuclear business be any different. I must say, that is one of the stupidest arguments I ever hear anti-nukes make. Sheesh! I suppose YOU don’t use YOUR wages / other income to pay YOUR taxes and other fees? I suppose it just magically appears to you. SMH

                    Actually, they payed a SPECIAL tax on interest earned on funds they have to accumulate for other purposes. The nuclear industry is just about the most heavily taxed and be-feed industry there is.

                    • CaptD March 4, 2015 at 8:34 PM

                      SAK – So you admit I’m correct…
                      “The Industry did not pay the money” the ratepayers did, which is a big distinction!

                      Also I believe that ratepayers must pay the nuclear waste money as yet another assessment that the Utility regulators have passed onto the ratepayers.

                    • SA Kiteman March 6, 2015 at 8:11 PM

                      They are called CUSTOMERS. They pay the nuclear power costs because even with paying it, nuclear is still the best deal. Sheesh, you are waxing nutsoid!

                  • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM

                    NOT FACTUAL. After the $12B is expended (if ever), Congress is merely on the hook to define WHO is liable for the rest. It is industry expectation that the Mutual Indemnification Clause will continue, though many would prefer that the company at fault be held liable.

                    Since it has negligable likelihood of ever happening, they aren’t too worried about it.

                    Oh my, they got it from their rate payers… and still the rate payers pay less for RELIABLE nuke power than for anything save hydro (which by the way IS subsidized MASSIVELY by the FedGov). By the way, anything they get frm the rate payers is in fact THEIRS, so yes they DID pay for it. You lack of basic understanding of business is disturbing. You may want to rectify tat before making yourself look the fool again.

            • Brian Donovan August 6, 2015 at 10:05 PM

              Sure is you use the literal definition of “subsides” yet if you use all gov breaks they get twice their operating expenses.

              Tell us how they would operate without gov insurance?

              • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:32 PM

                How would they do without government insurance? Just fine, given they don’t have any NOW, or ever, AFAIK. The FedGov requires that they buy the maximum insurance that insurance compnies are permitted to sell to ANY customer, and then required to mutually indemnify to about 30X the insurance level. After that, Congress is required to define and the industry expectation is that Congress will just continue the mutual indemnification rule. But since the worst case accident in the US has not exceeded the private insurance amounts, and nuclear plants are getting markedly safer all the time…

                Brian, you really should stop parroting the anti-nuke standard lies.

                Oh, and how would renewables do without the 100% government liability for flood insurance? Or the fact that no renewable technology is required to set asside founds to handle their wastes like nuclear is. Nor do they have to set asside OTHER funds for decommissioning like nuclear does. If anything, the nuclear industry is subsidizing the government with free loans.

              • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:51 PM

                What “government breaks”? I will bet you think that the government owns everything and just allows people to use it and anything that businesses earn belongs to the government, right? Are you aware of the EXTREME amount of government control over the nuclear industry and the fact that the industry DIRECTLY pays the wages of the government workers that regulate them? Any knowledgible, rational individual would notice that uniquely among energy industries, nuclear subsidizes the government, not the other way around.

              • VACornell January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

                Nuclear plants can exist for 60-80 years….maybe 100?
                What else can I say?
                Theyr’e costly, but…so reliable..
                Which reduces cost….forever…
                A hundred years from now…?
                What will we see?
                1…some of them still operating?
                2…all dead?
                What is YOUR thinking?…on this
                Vern Cornell

                • Brian January 22, 2016 at 4:08 PM

                  Reliable? Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI, Shellfield,…..

                  Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years and more expensive to operate that solar, wind or gas. Nuclear power is already failing to sell it’s energy at auctions.

                  Nuclear will be be long gone in 20 years, much less 100, and only the painful deadly wastes will remain forever. a million years is functionally forever given humans have only existed 200,000 years.



                  • Cees Timmerman March 16, 2016 at 5:26 PM

                    Even with those notable accidents, nuclear is the least deadly source of electricity: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2b12653449d2

                    • Brian March 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM

                      Bad data, they don’t include the millions of deaths from Chernobyl and fuku, nor all the deaths from mining.

                      It’s pr. Duh.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM

                      Alarmist overestimate. Current power generation also requires mining.

                      Also, modern reactors can run on current stockpiles of nuclear waste, including thorium from coal ash.

                    • Brian March 16, 2016 at 5:47 PM

                      No, it’s Russian federation science, that the IAEA, which has a charter to promote nuclear power, denies and the WHO uses the IAEA reports. But you believed it. You believe politicians and pr.

                      Nothing to worry about, lead, tobacco and radiation are all good for ya, right?

                      Over a million deaths from Chernobyl:

                      http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl

                      Consequences of the Catastrophe for

                      People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efc711deeeb15f6f6260fae100ebf1b340240aa49f2182ae7bb7f94fabc418a2.jpg

                      Remember the deaths and lives ruined by uranium mining? of course you don’t.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 22, 2016 at 8:23 AM

                      Hypocritical appeal to authority, ad hominem, straw man, gish gallop, appeal to emotion, how is uranium mining worse than coal mining?, ad hominem.

                    • Brian March 22, 2016 at 3:30 PM

                      You mean to listen to the scientist in the nations effected,instead of a political agency that get’s their report from the explicitly pro nuclear IAEA? No, that noticing conflicts of interest, which is no Ad Hominem.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM

                      Cherry picked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll lists, among others, Benjamin K. Sovacool, UNSCEAR, and the WHO in addition to the IAEA.

                    • Brian March 23, 2016 at 6:31 PM

                      A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]

                      your wiki link.

                      Disputed, I bet. a billion dollar in pr per year disputed.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM

                      Greenpeace relies on scare tactics to solicit donations from uneducated people. They have overestimated Brent Spar pollution, refuse to consider advances in nuclear science while telling people that advances in renewables will make everything work (possible, but it’s rather hard to find clear plans on their site, last i checked), and permanently damaged the most famous Nazca Lines area in yet another reckless cry for attention. That last act was what made me end my decade-long donations to them.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM

                      You call facts about nuclear power scare tactics.

                      Got it.

                      Very weak critique of Green peace too.Is that all ya have?

                      Greenpeace beat the daylights out of political agencies like the IEA for facts and accuracy: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-why-experts-get-it-wrong-on-wind-and-solar-58816 Greenpeace has nailed it every year for predicting solar and wind and IEA has gotten so wrong it’s funny. Why you should never trust political agencies!

                      Your future fantasy nuclear power plants are hilarious!

                      The AP1000 is nothing particularity new except dangerous cost cutting. That’s the newest nuclear power plant.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 11:09 AM

                      No, I call these scare tactics:

                      “we are looking at ice-free summers in the arctic as early as 2030”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

                      [spooky font] Are you in the Zone? [/spooky font]: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/greenpeace-zone.jpg from http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/greenpeace-anti-nuke-anti-radiation-pill-campaign-backfires.html

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM

                      And, we are well onto to that. Little early to be calling it wrong.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM

                      And you didn’t lay a glove on the Russian report, by the scientists, in the countries most effects.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 10:15 AM

                      Peer-reviewed and reproducible?

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM

                      Sure, all we need is another Chernobyl. Why don’t you folks read it and see.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 1:07 PM

                      “Though it likes to portray itself as a scrappy environmentalist organization against wealthy corporations, in reality Greenpeace’s operation is bigger than many of the world’s biggest multi-national corporations. For example, Greenpeace’s revenue is greater than some of the world’s richest sport franchises including the Arsenal soccer club ($336 million), Boston Red Sox ($272 million), and L.A. Lakers ($212 million). It is also bigger than what are thought to be the biggest trade associations including the American Petroleum Institute ($203 million) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($214 million).” – https://www.biggreenradicals.com/group/greenpeace/#financials

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM

                      Hilarious, and completely irreverent attempt to smear the source. BTW, we citizens fund Greenpeace. Unlike the other associations you list.

                      You see where the terrorists were after a nuclear power plant?

                      Don’t have to worry about solar and wind that we, do we.

                    • Brian March 23, 2016 at 6:33 PM

                      You seriously think we should listen to the IAEA estimate of the deaths, which are the ones used by WHO and the UN?


                      You know the charter for the IAEA is to promote commercial nuclear power right?

                      SO say it out loud: you trust the IAEA paid pr agencies estimate of nuclear power deaths.

                      Let’s hear that.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM

                      Yes, your logical fallacy is believe folks with a clear conflict of interest, and a history of lying: the IAEA.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 10:12 AM

                      “a history of lying” – Prove it.

                  • jason July 24, 2016 at 9:58 PM

                    Lol these people think the world has only existed 6000 years. Hard to argue with that mentality. And solar lasts over 50 years just figured I’d help ya. Its just guaranteed for 30.

                    I installed on my own place in washington state. Dropped my bill too 20 bucks it didn’t drop it 20 bucks big difference.

                    it was a big system and over 20 grand before credits but still worth it

                    • Brian July 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM

                      I wish I could install solar, but I live in the worst area in the country for solar on a lot shaded by my neighbor’s tress. I may move soon, and I will definitely look for a better solar location. It’s not clear if they will last 50 years, the oldest modern design solar panels in large quantities are only 40 years old. Do you have a link older panels still working? I looked.

                      Some of the new cells have very low degradation rates and are calculated to sill be producing 75% after 100 years. I don’t know how long silicone sealant would last. There were some all glass encapsulated panels, and they might well last 100 years. Solar panels are already profitable to recycle, even the cells. It’s not really a problem.

          • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM

            Look up CaptD on urban dictionary it’s kind of funny….

            • CaptD August 21, 2015 at 4:59 PM

              MM – The only thing “kind of funny” are those that only call others names, instead of posting relevant comments and/or links.

              To better describe people like that I penned:

              Nuclear Payback*

              * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

              Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

              • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 5:04 PM

                Kind of like posting “nuclear baloney” links to urban dictionary a dozen times? Or your new “Nuclear Payback”? What does making up nonsense and posting it to “Urban Dictionary” help anyone… ironically that was my point exactly! LOL

                • CaptD August 21, 2015 at 7:13 PM

                  MM – My point is that most that post Pro-Nuclear comments and especially those that seek to shift the decision to something else like the person making the comment, are doing it because they hope to get something in return, which is THE reason they support nuclear…

                  It is easy to spot these comments, just look for comments that have ZER☢ o do with the discussion topic, like most of yours are…

                  • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 7:33 PM

                    LOL CaptD you are one of the worst offenders, yet you try to point fingers at people who care about meeting our future energy needs with safe, clean, reliable power plants.

                  • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 10:08 PM

                    Yes, I expect to get everyone a better future; a cleaner environment, safe, abundant, reliable energy what are YOU trying to get in return?

          • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 8:18 PM

            nuclear gets the most, and useas the most land.

            http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$

            Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
            That means nuclear power needs more land than ground solar.

            • CaptD August 25, 2015 at 9:07 PM

              Brian – Seen this:

              Smaller ☢ does not mean better!

              Since Big is no longer profitable, the Nuclear industry is begging for R&D money to develop SMR’s.

              Hinkley C Mothballed – Is it in its Death Throes? « No2NuclearPower https://shar.es/1vbcWs

              • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 9:37 PM

                They are begging for money period. They are selling all the countries these reactors that will be short of fuel in ten years, India already has had to throttle their nukes from a lack of fuel.

                All these nukes have to be cancelled, what a con game!

          • just a thought June 20, 2017 at 7:01 PM

            Scroll down to…
            “Direct subsidies per unit energy to US power generation technologies”

            …and you will see that wind and solar and biomass get 38 times the 5 other energy sources combined, for the same amount of energy subsidized. Has and oil alone produce about 140 times the energy of wind and solar.


            • just a thought June 20, 2017 at 7:05 PM

              Not “Has”, but Gas. Coal should be included there as well. So should read “Gas, coal and oil…”

        • CaptD October 19, 2014 at 4:36 PM

          Joe Dick
          Wall Street knows what Energy costs which is why only the US Gov’t. is lending money for Nuclear, since Nuclear owns so many in Congress.

          A perfect example:

          Solar, wind cost-competitive for peak energy, study finds

          Consultant questions subsidies for residential solar when costs are dropping


          Solar and wind power are increasingly cost-competitive with conventional forms of electrical power, including coal and nuclear, even without subsidies, according to a new study.

          “The economics of alternative energy have changed dramatically in the last decade,” said George Bilicic, global head of the power energy and infrastructure group at Lazard Ltd. and author of the report.


          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:32 AM

            Wow. So, do instruct me as to how you’re going to do anything but spout bullshit from the media.

            Let me know when the first solar panel factory goes off line using it’s own product, will, you?

            You stalk the world via the internet, promoting the so-called future, and yet you can never answer that simplest of questions; so I will ask it again:

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Hell, if it’s so damn “killer app”, you don’t need batteries, because nobody really wants to work three shifts a day in “Musk World”. If it’s really “Musk World”, why don’t we put solar panels on our cars and drive around for free, all the time?

            C’mon, no batteries need be included; where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM

            Simple question:

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:35 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:36 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Co me one, answer the question, psychotic boy…

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:37 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Do tell us, please…

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:41 AM

            Oh, c’mon, please do tell me… where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories. We all want to sleep at night. Thousands of years we lived without power in the night. Wouldn’t it be great if the light bulbs dimmed as the sun went down? I think so. So, where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? I want a job there! In the company town. I’d vote against batteries and say let’s just sleep at night.

            Who’s side are you on?

            By the way, where are the solar powered solar panel factories?

            Do tell….

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:36 PM

              What a stupid ass argument. Make your point directly then we can discuss

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 10:42 PM

                What a stupid ass comment…it was CaptDishonest who made the claim regarding solar panel powered solar panel factories. Joe is simply asking him where they are.
                So Capt. where are they?

              • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 12:27 AM

                Why is it a stupid ass argument? Seems pretty direct to me. If you made a product that was capable of gathering more power than it took to make it, wouldn’t you then use it to make the next batch, and so on, until you could quit buying power and go off the grid?

                So why are there no solar panel powered solar panel factories? Could it be because they’re not efficient enough to make economical copies of themselves? Hmmm?

                • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 12:09 PM

                  asshat, the size of the roof in relation to the energy needed to manufacturer is the metric to review. Manufacturing is energy intensive. Most manufacturing plant will not be able to produce all their own power from sunlight. Most residences can. Many businesses can.


                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 9:19 PM

                    Asshat. You are so funny. ‘Splain to me how you are the “clarifier” of anything. Wow. You make me laugh!

                    • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 9:27 PM

                      Sheesh boy, you aint even up to being a troll

                    • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 1:20 PM

                      I don’t troll, “Clarifier”. Not my style. Sorry about your luck. And don’t call me “boy”.

                    • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 1:31 PM

                      OK Dick boy, whatever you wish

                    • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM

                      You sure seem to like my family name in your mouth…

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:04 PM

                    I still can’t believe your best response is “asshat”, and to call me a “dick”. Wow! I hope you had fun with all that. Feel better, little boy/giirl? Sorry you don’t have the frontal lobes to bring to the party. “asshat”. Wow. You make me laugh!

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM

                    “Clarifier”. Wow. As if you clarify anything by calling people “asshat”. One question. You put the lower case version of family name in your “mouth” via the keyboard twice tonight. One has to wonder if you like that. Meanwhile, I’m too busy laughing at you to respond to your content-free, rhetoric-full response.

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:12 PM

                    Hahahahahahahaha…. Muahhahahahahah…. You’re funny!

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:15 AM

            Yea, that’s why T. Boon Pickens lost his ass in wind power, because it is oh so competitive. You are farther out in space than Capt Kirk.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:19 PM

            Solar and Wind cost competitive without subsidies? What Hogwash! see here:



            Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

            Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan.

            Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.


            Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

            War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution.

            Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

            Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan.

            Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution.

            • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 1:31 PM

              Hilarious, as if any factual information has ever been posted at pronuke Rod Adams Atomic Lies

              • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:22 PM

                Could you be more specific? It is easy to make claims, a little harder to back them up. Just ask CaptDishonest who posted the bogus Yablokov non-sense, then when it was pointed out to him, he simply fled to another website and posted the same crap.

        • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM

          J. Dick – Who are you calling a nameless f? FLAGGED

          Nuclear gets far more money from the Gov’t. than Solar (of all flavors),especially when you factor in the Government taking the RISK if Nuclear goes BAD. Price Anderson ring any bells?

          Factual cost comparisons:

          Here are some factual cost numbers provided by bobwallace that were posted on Forbes here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/07/11/france-will-fix-its-nuclear-problems-but-will-that-satisfy-other-nations/2/

          “Production costs from the existing fleet are heading higher over the medium-term,” France’s Cour des Comptes said in a report to parliament published today.

          The report, which updates findings in a January 2012 report, said that in 2012 the Court calculated the cost of production of the current fleet for 2010, which amounted to EUR 49.5 per megawatt-hour.

          Using the same method for the year 2013 the cost was EUR 59.8/MWh, an increase of 20.6 percent over three years.


          That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

          US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM

            “CaptD” is not a name. I use my real name in pubic forums. If you can’t get that bit of shoild-be-easy-to-understand information, it is little wonder that you do not comprehend anything else I have discussed here.

            • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM

              Joe Dick – I don’t care what you call yourself or all the slanted comments you post, but Bullying and/or Name Calling is not allowed, so get your act together or populate some forums that specialize in Name Calling!

              RE: “comprehend” trying reading the links I’ve posted and perhaps you will “comprehend” that your posted costs for wind vs Nuclear are just plain not factual!

              In the above link, The French Government admits that their Nuclear is getting too expensive as compared to Wind; what is so hard to understand about that?

              • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM

                Look, you call yourself “CaptD”. Have you ever held the rank? In what branch of service, on a ship or in an airline? Meanwhile, your avitar is a robot. That’s a tell if ever there was one. Apparently you have been programmed, sorry to point that out. The majority of us here are human beings that think for ourselves, no programming required.

                The topic of the article under discussion here is the real estate required for different means of feeding the grid. Nuclear wins. Meanwhile, solar takes up a lot of acres, and for what? There are no solar powered solar panel factories, and they’d be off the grid if they were ” enewable “. Where does the energy come from to make them? Conventional sources. See any windmill powered windmill factories about? No. Same problem with both: They cannot harvest enough energy in their useful lives to make copies of themselves and provide a surplus of power.

                We get it. You are anti-nuclear. Understood.

                Now I’m all about free discussion and fair debate, so don’t go accusing me of as hominem attacks. All I’m saying – and this is for the audience, not you – is consider the source, and it explains everything: A robot wannabe Captain, raging against anyone who deigns to disagree.

                Flag this! You namless fanatic…

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM

            Let us see and contemplate… I received 11 upvotes for the post you screamed “flagged” about in all capital letters. You’ve been called many things here, such as “CaptDishonest” – did you flag them too? Many here have patiently discredited your cut-and-paste propaganda, as well as enjoy your illogical antics. You do realise that this has been going on now for over a year, right? You do have a sense of time, yes? Or does it take 10 months for something to sink in with you? Or are you just out of gas, with nothing else to argue, so now you seek to flag and ban those that disagee with you?

            Anyway, m’colleagues and I have certainly enjoyed the show! You are a nameless f – and “f” stands for fanatic. That you took it otherwise is your problem.

            • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 2:05 PM

              J. Dick – You are still calling out those that post comments, but you don’t post any real comments other than denial of Nuclear going BAD.

              BTW: I did not take it anyway, you calling people a fanatic is still name calling and that has ZERO to do with posting comment to replies; it is just Bullying. Flagged.

              • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM

                You never answer any of the questions I pose, like why are there no solar panel powered solar panel factories. When are you going to get that I’m performing a community service here? By keeping you tied up responding to year-old arguments, I keep you out of other people’s hair with your propaganda and failure to engage in actual, polite, fact-based discussion. You are a Captain? Of what? Simple question. You could politely answer that it’s just a fake name, and that you really are whoever you are, and your credentials are whatever they are; but no, you always refuse to engage in actual discussion on any topic.

                I wouldn’t be back here but for a ping on my Disqus saying you want to flag me for something I said ten months ago. So keep at it. I’ll continue to keep you busy, and press you for answers you’ll never give. As I said, I’m just performing a community service keeping you battling blindly away. I only respond to your responses. Based on private messages from other readers here, were just waiting for you to get tired and change the channel – and amazed that you just don’t get that no one is listening to you!

                1. Are you a Captain?
                2. Why are there no solar powered solar panel factories or the same for wind power?
                3. Rinse and repeat.

                Bullies like you don’t scare me. I’m no bully. I just ask questions and expect answers…

                • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM

                  Joe D –
                  1) You’re fishing but you can call me Sir…

                  2) Solar powered everything is coming, Google Apple and others are now installing their own Solar because they don’t want to pay Big Utilities for something they can produce themselves while writing off the cost! Home owners are following the same path toward Energy Freedom (once their investment is paid off).

                  Solar is now at the stage where Nuclear was in the 50’s and everyday more install Solar for themselves and for Utilities! In 10 years Solar (of all flavors) will be a much better value than anything available today!

                  China builds huge solar power station https://shar.es/1tiF5D

                  And soon maybe even this for true 24/7 “Solar Energy”:

                  Saudi Arabia in the North Sea https://shar.es/1tiFws

                  3) Swabbie

                  • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM

                    Ibid. See above. Answe the questions. You are not a “Captain” and solar power has always been coming to a theatre near you – except it’s a movie that does not exist. Try the Shockley equation on for size.

                    More cut and paste fake logic from “Sir CaptD”. Look everybody! He knighted himself to boot.

                    • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM

                      Joe D – Everybody calls a Captain “Sir”, it has Zero to do with being knighted, especially in the USA.

                      You want to talk about something that does not exist try SMR’s and that Nuclear “Wannabe” Thorium.


                      Try sticking to the conversation and stop fishing for background info so you can challenge other comments by calling them names!

                    • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 6:38 PM

                      People call Captains “sir” if they are a subordinate, and only if they are a Captain in reality. Captains call their superiors “Sir”. Therefore you lose your argument that everybody calls a Captain sir.

                      Again, why don’t you try sticking to the conversation regarding the topic of the article? Real estate required for unproven power sources to supply the grid and that that information was suppressed?

                      No, you have to bully everyone into the conversation you want to have in order to promulgate your propaganda. Keep at it! We’re having a good chuckle over a few friendly beers at your ineptitude.

                      Given that I have relevant training and a degree in engineering, perhaps you should show some respect to your superiors. Nope. Clearly not a Captain, unless it was with a dishonourable discharge!

                      Enjoy your evening! Let us know when you come up with anything original or award winning in your thoughts! My mates and I are done being “entertained”, and off from the pub to have some fun that doesn’t involve easy targets.

                    • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 8:27 PM

                      Joe D – RE: “My mates and I are done being “entertained””

                      I guess that means you and the others like you are done adding Pro-Nuclear comments for the day, hope they pay you well… Ha Ha Ha

                      You are not the only one with a Degree in engineering so again, stop fishing for background info and post some relevant info, if you can.

                      BTW: The Hinkley C project is now mired down in lawsuits and that is a great thing for all the UK ratepayers that will have to “pay” for too high priced Nuclear Energy for decades to come, plus that is before they have to decommission it and try and store the ☢ Waste someplace.


                      Nuclear IS TOO Expensive for everyone except those that profit from Nuclear!

                      Here is another example from the US for a new reactor:


                      That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

                      US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

                      If new Vogtel energy costs 18 c/kWh who is going to profit from using it?

                      Ratepayers will be held in Energy Slavery as long as Vogtel operates figure 20 to 40+ years as regulators force them to buy Energy instead of installing their own residential Solar.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 10:20 AM

                      Never done. Just know when to go have fun! Something you seem too wrapped around the axle to accomplish.

                      Now we release you into the wild. Go! Be free! Run witback h your own kind! You can all howl at the moon together.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM

                      “Ratepayers! Energy slavery awaits you! Deal not with the nuclear devil! Repent! Repent!”

                      You sound like a combination of a broken record and a bad televangelist.

                      Nuclear is clean, efficient, inexpensive, and safe when done properly. Thorium rectors look promising; too bad they were set aside for almost 50 years, but at least we’re exploring them again.

                      I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant than be like this poor guy and his family. Sure wind turbines shut down when the detect icing conditions, and will never accrete ice that they can throw at people and their homes less than 300 metres… away…https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmYe2u6J6g
                      They won’t have a negative effect on wildlife…

                      They are so safe and clean and friendly!

                      And safe and dependable!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ovHFTSBQ54

                      And you never have to shut them down in bad weather, and they’re designed to live through the most extreme conditions…

                      You are anti-nuke, even when nuclear makes sense. I’m anti-stupidity, but of course you won’t understand what I just said, you’ll just bleed all over it with your anti-nuke propaganda, shouting so loud that you fail to hear…

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:18 AM

                      When I studied nuclear science at Purdue University, we reviewed the data from Three Mile Island. Then Professor Gailar had us calculate the exposure we would receive from the radioactive isotopes of in just the three students in the row in front of us, the three behind, and the ones to our immediate left and right. Going to a single semester of his class was orders of magnitude more exposure from naturally occurring radioactive potassium in our classmates.

                      Even a modicum of Education dispels a trainload of irrational fear.

                    • CaptD August 17, 2015 at 1:23 PM

                      Joe D – Your PU example is just more phony science, since one “fuel flea” inhaled could easily cause lung cancer and lead to death. Fukushima put tons of radioactive “dust” into the upper atmosphere, I wonder who is breathing it in right now?

                    • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM

                      Okay, Negative Nelly. It’s all doom and gloom! Might as well give up. You’re destined to be dead as soon as you’re born, so give up! If we eliminated nukes you’d just be afraid of something else until the world was made of Nerf – and then you’d still complain.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:37 AM

                      I have to laugh at anti-nuke activists. They gather in groups, irradiating each other with their own naturally occurring isotopes.many have sun tans. Until the advent of flat panel displays, they ranted at the world from computers with CRTs. Before that, they printed flyers and leaflets on paper, full of carbon 14.

                      They can run, but they cannot hide! Live in a cave alone? No! Naturally occurring mineral isotopes abound! Dear gods, there are particles passing through us that have passed through the entire earth! Aghhhhhh! Save us! Lol

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:55 AM

                      Life has an absolute, 100% guarantee of just one thing: Death. It’s not a death-proof world. Nothing is perfect. You cannot make the world absolutely safe. You will get hurt along the way. Things are hard and sharp and you will get bruised and cut and you will bleed and maybe even break a bone or two.

                      The activists amuse me. What are we supposed to do? Make everything from Nerf? Oh wait, sponge rubber outgasses chemicals, and isn’t bio-degradeable! And people still have fists to punch with and hands to strangle with. Oh no! Now what do we do?

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM

            Still enjoying a great big loud belly laugh! Ten months later you claim to flag me for calling you a nameless fanatic. Ever so sorry I abbreviated! Man, you do need to get a clue. Start with using your real name and a picture of yourself, preferably not in an restaurant-grade aluminium foil hat.

        • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:40 AM

          It’ doesn’t cost 82 cents per KWH, unless you only use it for one year.

          What a subversive lie. you take a thirty year product and cost it out using one year.

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:47 AM

        C’mon! You said it pencils out so readily! Show me the grapilhite! Figure for me baby!

        • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 2:45 PM

          MUST NOT waste time on trolls

          • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 3:19 PM

            In other words you can’t cut the mustard. Figures.

      • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:11 AM

        Nuclear costs more than solar? What baloney! If it costs so little, why isn’t it producing more power? Why do the power companies not completely shifting over to solar? The obvious answer to these questions make you look like a fool and a dupe.

      • SA Kiteman February 21, 2015 at 1:10 PM

        The “waste” from a current nuclear plant is about 3% waste and 97% fuel. Seperate the two and the waste is as safe as the dirt it came from in about 300 years. That is easily paid for by the original users; no slavery involved.

      • G.S. Williams August 15, 2015 at 4:58 AM

        check in youtube for LFTR in 5 minutes. This is 100% safe nuclear fission

        • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM

          G.S. W – LFTR is nowhere near either Proven Safe or Ready for Commercialization, it is just more ☢ Pie in the $KY *Nuclear Baloney (NB).

          BTW: Solar and/or Wind are far less expensive than Nuclear and that is a proven fact.


      • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:03 PM

        Fission “Nuclear” is the Baby Fusion is the “DADDY” Bring it on!

      • Haut September 17, 2015 at 9:11 PM

        Correction, Nuclear is cheaper more efficient, solar is Ok, for small operations, try gridding up a Hospital complex with solar, “OR” wind I would,nt like to be relying on either for my health, I think you are an indoctrinated “Fool” Do you think Bin, Laden done 9-11 just answer that & I will know I,m right, but will you?

      • GRAMPA October 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM

        many haven’t factored in what it takes to manufacturer the photo voltaic cell. The maximum efficiency obtained under ideal conditions is twenty two percent. then we must look at the elements in the manufacture. many are highly toxic. We had a problem in Michigan when one of Obamas deals to create jobs went bankrupt and left barrels of the waste product for the state to dispose of it required treatment with other chemicals just about as bad as the ones used in the process and then encapsulation. This also must be stored and if broken would cause damage to the land. The foot print to make a farm large enough to power a city would be as large as the city itself. Look on http://www.cfact for the UK has data comparing the size of the footprint. As a master electrical contractor I can tell you that the photocell will need many years of improvement to equal a normal coal or oil powered plant. Nuks are dangerous but I see improvements every day and they can be made safe with research. steps have been made to reuse the rods and not need to store them. Doesn’t say we should give up and back off the pressure for that is the only way we will solve the problems.

        • CaptD October 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM

          Gramps — Isolated problems are found in all Energy generation. Nuclear has had some epic failures and has cost trillions in global Eco issues.

          Read how Germany is both lowering their Electrical rates and going Renewable at the same time despite what the Anti-Green Bloggers are saying (and yes they are using very modern Coal Generation [while scrapping their older Coal generation] to assist them as ever moreRenewable generation starts replacing even the Coal generation):


          • GRAMPA October 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM

            as a master electrician and contractor I follow this closely. the cells are only twenty two percent efficient and that comes by layering. The cell must have sunlight period the highest efficiency comes in a direct sunlight that is on a gimbal driven by clockworks or stepper motor bringing the surface into alignment with the sun. The efficiency that is published is measured under maximum sun. If we factor in the data output when we have no sun and then add the two together we have only ten percent efficiency. Why should we demand output from every other source and make exception for photo voltaic cells. These cells are almost as toxic as the nucular elements and no one has done study’s on the impact it will have on the environment when disposed. because this is a new technology who knows how long they will last? The led that is made from the same elements were said to last ten thousands of hour’s. They do but the light output diminishes and we are seeing this even now with the TV sets that the picture isn’t as bright even after only one year. The arays that will be installed outside will also be subject to damage from weather something that isnt factored into test data. A typical home of 2000 sq foot costs about 18 thousand dollars to install. and the idea you can sell your extra power back to the utility. Yes if you have the equipment that can synchronize your output with the power grid. the sq foot required for a southern exposure would be 1000 sq ft and it goes up to compensate for angular compensation. The footprint at the top of the article shows how many photocells it would take to provide the same output as nucular and while it doesn’t say they must base the output on a seventy percent efficient output a standard in the electrical industry. I am not trying to knock the industry down or discourage its use just saying we are a long way from any degree of dependence on this technology.

            • CaptD October 25, 2015 at 12:31 AM

              GRAMPA – The new panels are sending signals almost by the minute so that the output is monitored 24/7. They will be replaced if any of them are not producing as designed. Try talking to some big Solar Companies like SolarCity or SunPower as they guarantee their panels for 30+ years!

              BTW: Nothing pollute the environment like a nuclear reactor gone BAD, look at Fukushima. Also all the Nuclear waste is going to be around forever (as far as we are concerned).

              Good Luck to US.

              • GRAMPA October 25, 2015 at 11:06 PM

                they do not guarantee against nature and its wrath. We have balls of ice the size of baseballs and I know of no photocell that will produce in the dark. Yes the danger from nuclear is great and nothing is perfect if we look at the accidents and adapt and improve the footprint of these generators cannot be compared to ether photo or wind. photo cells have a long way to go for efficiency and they cant serve in darkness and must rely on battery’s storage that present danger in themselves. and like everything must be manufactured which requires more carbon footprint. Wind generation also requires manufacturing and now we are learning of the fatigue problems of the blades and the failure rate of the bearings. The wind farms installed by Germany and Ireland suffer constant failure ant the cost of maintenance and replacement parts is costs grow ever more expensive, inflation being the least of the costs. Specialized training for the maintenance alone are prohibitive for only few pass the training. Standing in the sea requires ships that are rigged for some very bad weather that subjects these units to extreme stress. Even the ones that are land based require many thousands of acres to produce the same as one nuclear that will take two hundred acres. Which becomes less threat to man two hundred acres unusable or 130 thousand acres to supply the same output To be useful they must be located on prime land because maintenance costs and transmission costs will take too much of the profits. Look and see how many personnel it takes for the nuke plant and for ether air farm or photo farm. At this point it wont work.
                Grampa Master electrician/ contractor

                • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM

                  GRAMPA — Better recheck your facts, both Wind and Solar PV require far fewer workers and the energy they produce can be stored (Hydro, battery, molten salts) to use when the sun or wind is not available. Germany is making money on their renewable tech as well as reducing their dependance on Nuclear and Coal, as they install ever more Renewable.

                  Plus those homeowners and factory owners that install it get paid for the energy they produce, not just Big Utilities like in the USA.

                  You said, “The wind farms installed by Germany and Ireland suffer constant failure ant the cost of maintenance and replacement parts is costs grow ever more expensive” is not accurate, please post a link to where you got it.

                  • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 7:21 PM

                    I talked to my cousin who lives and works in germany and he sent me to a site that shows in wider perspective of the power problems and not just for the wind farms.
                    https://srsroccoreport.com/germany-death-of-renewable-energy-bring-on-the-dirty-coal-monsters/ and http://www.welt.de/ will explain the “green energy failing. google will translate the German site. They are expanding the use of coal, Well you cant believe everything you hear now can you.

                    • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 7:31 PM

                      GRAMPA – Sorry, you are not disclosing the “whole” picture.

                      Yes, as I said above, they are now using CLEANER Coal generation to fill-in until they complete installing ever more Renewables and they are doing it while also getting rid of all Nuclear.

                      The USA could easily do the same thing fig it was not for the Utilities “hold” on elected Decision makers that want to keep getting Nuclear Payback*.

                      They even pay far prices for non Utility Electrical Energy from non-Utility generation, something that is not happening in the USA.

                      * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

                      Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

                    • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 7:48 PM

                      You said their cost were not going up which is it you cant have it both ways and the costs to cable the wind farms with the costs of copper and aluminum are unsustainable. They limit the generators at twenty years and they are most at fifteen now it is unsustainable and like the articles say they are going back to coal. Canada is now following suite and going to oil Obama hasnt the wherewithal to comprehend the need to go to our natural gas and our oil that could put us back on the path to economic stability. I may have only a high school education but I have operated two successful company’s and learned economics the hard way and I see where the inefficient power is taking many countries on the pretense of renewable power and it will never happen for they try to run before they can walk.
                      Grampa Aka Mullan electric

                    • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 8:23 PM

                      GRAMPA —
                      Energiewende doesn’t translate as “energy mess”


                      The Senator is exaggerating. He probably got the figure from former German Environmental Minister Peter Altmaier, who announced a price tag of a trillion euros for the Energiewende. But over the next 35 years (Germany has targets for 2050), this number only amounts to 30 billion euros a year. Even that amount is probably less than what we will have to pay anyway. After all, Altmaier was not only talking about phasing out nuclear, as the Senator seems to think. Rather, Germany also aims to reduce the share of fossil fuel in Germany’s energy supply from the current level of around 85 percent down to 40 percent by midcentury. Pursuing the Energiewende is cheaper than not pursuing it. And the Germans aim to do so not only with solar and wind, but also with biomass, efficiency, smart grids, etc.

                      I believe that you have enough “experience” to understand what it is saying. Afterward, you will have a much more accurate picture of what is going on.

                    • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 11:22 PM

                      You have proof this man is lying? I get my information from my cousin who lives and works there He directed me to this information Believe what you wish I believe family for he has nothing to gain by lying to me. When one uses words like “probably” they have no secure data to stand on.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM

                      GRAMPA — One nuclear Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster will more than fund any improvements that Renewables require and that is without even including the long term ☢ Storage and/or the problems it poses to mankind.

                      Instead of worrying about “wiring” you need to consider the big picture, where man’s greed and/or Nature leads to yet another Fukushima “for what ever reason”…

                      The more solar rooftops we install, the more Energy will be at the point of use and that will make the system even more efficient, despite what Big Utilities say to try and retain their marketshare of Energy profits.

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 2:07 PM

                      Do you know the cost and how to synchronize the output from your roof top to the power grid? When power is generated it cannot be stored and if not used the potential is wasted. If the utility has no need to buy the power you have generated how will you force them to buy what they dont need. Power use goes up at night and darn just when the photocells dont work. life is a bitch. You havent said anything that hasnt been said before. Oh yes and the Obama idea for “green” power from photocells in Michigan was a big failure with a bankruptcy and putting six hundred out of work and left tons of toxic manufacturing byproduct for the state to clean up. this was on Tv and pushed as the savior by Obama personalty. I will say you have your intentions in the right place but at this point technology is not sufficient . It doesn’t say that tomorrow they wont find the way of storage that will give us the advantage we need. I follow the technology daily but must say that with everything we have nucular is still the most productive. Is it dangerous yes but is that a reason to stop from making it safer? It still provides the only true zero carbon output after the fuel rods are made. We will never control the safety standards of other countries. So I would give you one last problem to solve if you would deny japan the ability of using nucular where would you get the power giving the footprint of the alternatives. Consider the conditions of the weather off Japan for both the efficient of photocell or the storms that would wreck havoc on the wind farms As a contributor to the NEC conditions around the world are factored in the studies on conditions and the restrictions imposed on the installations for the safety of the citizen. The nucular plant you speak of was designed to stand a 5.0 quake but a wave that force we have no designs that would let it survive. How many problems have they had before this problem? how many plants in the US? How many problems have we had? The safety record of the entire world is excellent but play on the fears of the citizen for political advantage. We do need people who watch but I caution that we must not be lead by the fears imposed by politics for government and their push for control and power.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 2:25 PM

                      GRAMPA — The utility takes care of allowing home generation to enter the GRID and they get paid to do it. In CA SDG&E has even patented a device that allows for easy connection to smaller sized panels so the homeowners don’t have to heavy up their panel when they install Solar.

                      You need to balance every point against Solar & Wind with one against Nuclear and/or Coal.

                      Then you will start to provide “balanced” comments, instead of Anti-Solar & Wind.

                      10 years from now Solar & Wind will be far more accepted/desired than now because ratepayers will discover that they can easily provide much if not most of their own Electricity, and they will be able to also recharge their eVehicles at the same time.

                      That is the Future, despite what the Utilities are trying to prevent.

                      Germany is making major headway and if they can do it so can the USA!

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM

                      Whoa This is my business I work with every day. It is the way I make my living so how can you say I am against it? I do not want it to fail and it will if controlled by government instead of the professionals who are trained in the utility. I have had people jump into the idea that they would sell power back to the utility and I am now going back to my customers and removing the panels because they have found the customer not there buying the power. We are seeing the removal when the homeowner try’s to sell the home and are penalized for removing the panels because the utility has you sign a contract to sell but on their demand. The contract must be passed to the new home owner and as with any contracts there is costs to transfer and the new purchase rates are not the same. as they claim lower profit margins. now the investment of the installation will take longer and isn’t acceptable. a single array will cost with permits (if allowed) of $ 2000.oo dollars to a complete system for a 2000 sq.ft home at $45,000.oo dollars Ask yourself what is the cost of one kilowatt hr. and how long would it take you for a return on your money? In Detroit it is .15 for a kilowatt hr. I do not sell or push the sale unless they want to live off the grid. It isnt profitable. We gross around three million a year and provide only few customers who ask for solar. Most are industrial who want backup power for computer service. Im sorry I have provided data from Germany and their unsuccessful efforts to make the sustainable power work. Again I repeat I am not against the development but do not force it on a country when it isnt capable yet. Develop and make your utilities you have safer for they may prove more viable in the long run.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM

                      Grampa — You can imagine how popular Solar is in the sunshine states where the payback is around 10 years and the panels are guaranteed for 25 or more years.

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 6:15 PM

                      Yes I can imagine and work to create it everyday. I dont want to sound like the wet towel to cool down the energy but along with the sunshine is also lower cost of living and the wages that go with it. Now that said the average size of the home is also smaller and also their electrical usage. The investment however remains the same per square footage of a home that uses less energy and as a result would need to spread the cost over many more years. Our most efficient models used are in bright sunlight almost 22% I have data that has a new double layer that claims higher. We will need to get the output much higher. having associates who are contractors in Florida and having many customers who are retired the interest in installing equipment they wont be around to use isn’t high on the list This would be the best place for sun usage but now to add another problem. insurance for storm damage. The major problem we have even in Michigan is wind A cell makes a perfect wing and while we have tornadoes with 90 MPH winds they have the same in Florida. With commercial installations the frame and roof support can be over half the cost of the cell. We have many who work to solve the many problems. I haven’t even mentioned lightning and the damage it can do from a strike nearby. So far the best installations are out west in the near desert areas that dont grow any invasive plants or critters that like to nest in them. the wind farms are also doing OK out on the plains but are presenting problems with wildlife with the vibrations that are inaudible to man. We have many obstacles to overcome. and that is why I dont want government to force their usage on a nation that cannot sustain itself with their present efficiency and reliability.

                    • Atoms4Peace1 October 31, 2015 at 1:33 AM

                      Blah blah blah. The antinuclear bafflegab keeps spewing.

                    • CaptD October 31, 2015 at 11:43 AM

                      A4P1 — At least I post readable replies, links and comments instead of just calling other names like you seem to enjoy doing.

                      Here is what SCE did when they tried to self design replacement steam generators at San Onofre (aka SanO):

                      If you had bothered to read the many links I’ve posted for you to read, you would have learned that SCE failed to design the new replacement steam generators to prevent the 9,727 internal tubes, in each replacement steam generator, from hitting each other and/or their supports.

                      Tube chart link:


                      This caused what the NRC called “unprecedented” wear and lead to the radioactive leak in 01/31/12. Although small, it in turn led to the inspections that revealed that all four almost new replacement steam generators were no longer safe! SCE then decommissioned San Onofre to end both the NRC and the CPUC investigations into SCE’s “wrong doing.”

                      BTW: If one and especially if several tubes had failed, it could have caused a cascade of tube failures that could have quickly drained the reactor core and caused a meltdown like Fukushima.

                      BTW: SCE is FLEECING all it ratepayers by having agreed to a behind closed settlement (that determined that ratepayers would pay for SCE’s debacle) that was done in Austria long before any public meeting were held to “determine” a fair settlement.

          • GRAMPA October 25, 2015 at 9:49 PM

            I agree improvements are being made but what i try to convey is that cutting costs should not be the only goal. In California people have cut power consumption only to be hit with an surcharge because they cut consumption. this will become practice for if consumption is cut so is revenues for the power company’s. The budgets are figured on projected incomes. it has a ripple effect down the line and as example with coal use if less is needed and less is shipped then we need less trains and less people to run ,service and build them and less people working is less taxes collected by government. Less people working causes less spending power that puts others to work Our nation can only function by a continuous expansion of product. Efficiency is the only way that works. Keeping the world safe is also the goals of many who must gain the ear of the public to look to insure that any improvements are done so that they pose no danger to our country in the future. How many times have we thought we has the answer to all our problems only to have two caused by not looking ahead and putting our miracles into use only to find they are a curse. All I want is to implement an ounce of prevention so we dont need to spend the pound of cure.

            • CaptD October 25, 2015 at 10:24 PM

              GRAMPA — I suggest that you begin to balance your comments so that readers can better benefit from your experience as a “master electrical contractor.”

              I believe that Solar (of all flavors) is the future and all the items you pointed out (plus others that you did not) will be the accepted norm in 20 years if not sooner.

              At that time Nuclear will still be too expensive to use, unless ratepayers are forced to by they elected Leaders and regulators; at which time those states will see business “flight” as consumers plus small and big business alike relocate to other areas of the USA that offer less expensive energy, like the Sunbelt.

              • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM

                I am not trying to change peoples minds for I haven’t the skill to do that. I expect people to take information and expand their own views and prove to themselves if what I say is true or not. Dont believe anything you hear and only half what you see. I have had two businesses I built on only a high school education. I have poor English skills so I dont belong as a teacher. I point to data I have found and expect people to use their own skills to prove it for themselves. My only advice is that we do not trust government data until proven by trusted sources for government uses data for its control over the citizen. In my seventy five years I have seen the change and while I cannot speak with authority on many subjects I have worked personally with these two utilities to know that while they have promise we have much research to do. The more people looking the better chances we have that someone will have the answers that solve the major problems. my only hope is I push even one to take notice and not accept what others say. Well I have confused everyone enough!

      • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 9:13 AM

        Fluoridated molten salts Thorium reactors like the one they ran without any incident in Tennessee for five years.

        • CaptD December 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM

          Allen — Lots of R&D money spent on it but nothing was ever Commercialized because it did not pencil out then, nor would it now that Renewables costs are dropping almost monthly.

          • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM

            There was nearly NO money spent on it.

          • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM

            Almost NO money was spent on it. It was run 5 days a week for 5 years without failure nor incident. Obviously you’re new to the energy field I’ve been a professional in atmospheric energy and radiation for a couple of decades, and the story of the Thorium reactor that ran is the stuff of legend in the nuclear world.

            Money was set aside to try to find a nuclear engine for an AIRCRAFT is where the initial output went. When the research for an aircraft nuclear engine was over, the one they’d made was started and run for five years.
            The mechanical description and energy processes of that reactor are very well chronicled and you’re simply talking like someone who learned your nuclear power from Popular Science.

          • Allen Eltor December 28, 2015 at 4:21 AM

            No hardly ANY money was spent on it. It came out of the desire for a plane nuclear engine and when all the studies were done the simple cheap reactor was there ready to go so they started it and ran it five days at a time during the work week, 24/7 for five years.

    • Brian Donovan August 8, 2015 at 3:44 PM

      Nuclear uses and abuses more land than solar, wind and renewable have to. Renwables can be built smart and use zero land. offshore and rooftop/parking lots.
      Nuclear needs Rare Earths, renwable doesn’t.

      Pro nuclear folks love to talk about how “dense” nuclear power
      is, resisting the obvious joke that claim is both false and
      irrelevant. Nuclear power station need thousand of acres of exclusion
      zones around them.

      It’s mining and wastes where nuclear
      power really eats land. For example

      .05% to even .02% ore. Olympic Dam has enormous reserves of ore, with
      347,000 tonnes of contained uranium oxide …. The
      overall resource contains some 2.45 million tonnes of uranium oxide
      in a hematite breccia complex. While the grade of the uranium ore is
      lower than many mines or potential mines which have the benefit of
      open cut operation, the fact that copper is a co-product with uranium
      from that same ore (at 1.8% Cu in the reserves) means that such
      grades are viable.
      Expansion of the mine will bring major
      infrastructure challenges. The present 12 GL/yr water consumption
      (met from the Great Artesian Basin) will grow, possibly to 70 GL/yr,
      requiring a coastal desalination plant with pipeline to Olympic Dam.
      The operation now uses 10% of the state’s base-load power (870
      GWh/yr) and the expansion will add demand for another 650 MWe and
      4400 GWh/yr, the source of which remains to be determined. The CO2
      output from power generation attributable to the operation is likely
      to grow from 0.9 to some 4.7 Mt/yr.
      1,136,000 hectares per
      2.4M tones of u2o8. About a hectare pr ton.

      at .02%, you need to dig up 5000 tons of rock to get one ton of
      yellowcake. That process contaminate much larger areas than
      the mines themselves, the water, the dust, the acids used for

      that 1 tons of yellowcake, a weapons proliferation risk, must then be
      further refined such that 8 tons are needed per tons of fuel.

      40,000 tons of ore are needed to make a ton of fuel. That’s no
      better than coal in terms of mined materials versus energy.

      to mention overburden and suck.

      tailing from nuclear mines are particularly bad. the broken
      rock is porous and water easily leaches the toxic materials out.
      They could immobilize in concrete, but that too expensive so
      they don’t. Then the used leaching acid is stored in pools like
      the one that recently broke. While uranium mining share these
      problems with other types of mining, it’s one of the worst.

      for energy density, it’s not an advantage, it’s a liability over a
      certain point. The Average efficient home has enough rooftop to
      provide the average amount of electricity from average solar panels.
      There are 40% panels that are currently too expensive, but
      will probably eventually come down. You don’t need high
      intensity than that.

      power on the other hand has much to high an energy density are
      various point to be safe. The Yellowcake is a proliferation
      threat. The nuclear power plants need vast exclusion zone and
      need to be far from population, increasing dangers and transmission
      costs. The waste is also to energy dense and dangerous.

      NEEDs rare earths.

      can add color to glass, and it
      is used in microwave
      equipment as well
      as nuclear control

      Erbium is a
      lso used as a neutron absorber in nuclear

      Gadolinium hasparticular properties that make it
      especially suited
      for important
      functions,such as shielding in
      nuclear reactors and
      neutron radiography.

      shielding windows
      for the nuclear industry. Radiation shielding
      windows are
      from high-density,cerium-stabilizedlead glasses.

      is used as an additive in yttrium-stabilized
      zirconium oxide
      and is the primary rare earth compound used
      in refractory
      ceramics. Included are YSZ oxygen sensors used to

      oxygen content in automobile exhaust gases, molten glass
      steel. They are also used to control industrial
      and as aqueous pH sensors in primary water systems of

      Europium is often used as a shield
      material because it has a high
      neutron cross section
      and has also has been used for
      control rods in certain compact
      nuclear power reactors

      The largest rare earth use is metal
      additives, mostly for the type
      high quality alloys nuclear
      power need.

      Rare earth mining in third world countries is
      sadly done without
      proper regulation, and the world now imports
      rare earths and nuclear
      ore from third world countries.

      nuclear ore mining is even worse.

      Ya notice a pattern in the
      nuclear fan boys? They accuse
      renewables of something bad, and it
      turns out, it’s not renewables
      that have the problem it’s nuclear
      that does.

    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:41 PM

      Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
      That means nuclear power needs more land than ground solar.

    • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 8:20 PM

      Nuclear needs more land than land solar. solar needs zero since it fits on rooftops, parking lots and roads, but if you choose land, it’s smaller than nuclear.
      http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html nuclear also cost 4 times as much. it’s also short of fuel in ten years.

    • Brian Donovan September 20, 2015 at 7:12 PM

      Gee, minus mining, and waste disposal, fuel fabrication….

  2. CaptD November 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

    Yet another Pro Nuclear canard, remember that one nuclear power plant can become a Fukushima and cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster, wind and/or solar cannot!

    • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

      Wind and solar can’t do a lot of things – like provide enough power to matter. Nuclear is the best, safest option, but frightened fools lie about the damage it can do. Fukushima was not built to deal with the level of quake it should have been, yet the damage is still far less than the greenies try to spin it as.

      • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM

        You are right, Wind and Solar can’t do a lot of things like cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima!

        As for providing clean and safe energy, unlike risky and expensive nuclear, they will define our future, that is unless decision makers are receiving money from the nuclear utilities…

        • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

          Fukushima didn’t cause anything, that was the tsunami. Wind provides little, but does do ecological damage. Solar is purely supplementary, when it works. Together, they can only define a Malthusian future. Nuclear, however, can open the cycle and allow us to grow. The expense of nuclear is also mostly due to scare-mongering and excessive regulation.

          We badly need to go to thorium pebble-bed reactors, with a handful of soliton reactors for processing spent fuel, and use some of the electricity to crack sea water for hydrogen to power cars, as well as to create more drinking water. We also need to encourage more businesses and homebuilders to supplement with roof-based solar cells, while discouraging large area solar arrays (except in orbit).

          • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM

            Forget the Nuclear R&D, if we sue that money to install safe and proven Solar (of all flavors) we get immediate access to energy without any nuclear baggage or risk…

            SMR win Golden Fleece Award:


            • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 11:41 PM

              Forget solar – it’s proven ONLY to be modestly useful, but utterly unable to replace the grid, and takes too long to provide any benefit. As for R&D – what R&D? We already know how to build pebble bed reactors, and we’ve also already built soliton reactors. The only real baggage to nuclear is the agitprop of useful idiots such as yourself. Nor do I care about the Proxmires – the unlamented senator set back the space program considerably, for which he should have been executed as a traitor to the whole human species. Take off the blinders and actually THINK!

              • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 12:43 PM

                Ever more Nuclear Baloney from you while at the same time you refer to me saying,”useful idiots such as yourself”.

                Name calling is prohibited, end of discussion……………..

                • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

                  You post no facts, only green dreams. You also have entirely too thin a skin. Look up the phrase you found yourself offended by, and then really rethink the lies you buy.

                  • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM


              • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:40 AM
                • William Ewing January 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

                  Cherrypicking allows you to make things seem better. Overall, across all zones, solar does not scale as well.

                  • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM

                    Care to share some proof of that? Closer to the equator than Germany, solar should only get better.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 3:54 AM

                      Please quote relevance in case the links die.
                      While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. […]
                      After installing a solar panel, “it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
                      “”” – JASON DEAREN, ASSOCIATED PRESS
                      FEB. 10, 2013

                      A solar-panel manufacturing plant in the eastern Chinese city of Haining has been forced to close after hundreds of residents attacked the facility in a 4-day protest over accusations the factory contaminated a nearby river, according to the BBC.
                      “”” – DINA SPECTOR
                      SEP. 19, 2011

                      Chinese factories are known to pollute local streams, but the Chinese government should be able to handle that, unless it’s corrupt.

            • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:36 AM

              Half a US billion is peanuts compared to ongoing wars. The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second. State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars. http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

              • William Ewing January 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

                And I for one, would love to end the war on drugs and get rid of the DEA. Put that money into a real space program.

          • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

            Have they solved the dust and constipation issues of pebble-bed reactors yet? LFTR or IFR may be more viable designs.

      • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

        It is nice to see intelligent posts, such as yours, Mr. Ewing. Thank you for taking the time to deal with this nasty little troll; what a shame, however, that people like “CaptD” pollute the internet with unnecessary noise…

    • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM

      As the professor pointed out above, solar cells are replete with toxic waste. Wind farms kill birds and bats in large numbers, significantly impacting the local ecology. And the metal to build has to be mined, so your beloved “green” tech really isn’t green at all. Open your eyes.

      • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        Ever more crapola from you posted without having any factual basis.

        Post some links to backup your claims (if you can find any) or at least get educated on the subjects you claim to know something about!

        Try this excellent piece on bird deaths and who is to blame
        Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers, Wind Turbines Not Even Close To The Top (Be sure to read the comments and notice all the links to back them up)!

        Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/31/canada-ranks-top-bird-killers-wind-turbines-even-close-top/#Yl5u5iclrMublQBv.99:

        • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:33 PM

          Links mean little, other than that someone built a site to say something. That does not make it true. I, on the other hand, read books and evaluate the author’s claims logically. Don’t be so credulous.

          • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM

            Ha Ha Ha

            • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

              Terribly mature. Now shut up and listen. You might learn something. Or go away; those of us who are interested in having an intelligent discourse.

              Also, by the way, don’t bother with that puerile thought going through your head of some grade-school witticism involving my family name. You’ll just look more a fool than you already do.

              • CaptD September 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM


                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 10:15 PM

                  You are a cunt, as and you know it. How can you possibly be bored by something you had to have a computer remind you of?

                • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:31 AM

                  Your sole cerebral contribution to the discussion.

        • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM

          Quite the propaganda site you cite. Even there, the comments show that the data was old, and based on the then-extant low number of wind turbines, and is no longer accurate.

          • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

            Name calling and claims of “Propaganda” will not convince any readers that you actually have valid points worth considering…

            • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM

              Seems like you’re the one slinging names and insults about, alone with a rather rude style in general. It’s nice and easy to hide behind an avitar and a fake name issue verbal slings and arrows, isn’t it. First, I rather doubt you have ever held the rank of Captain. Second, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t have a degree in any applied science or engineering. Must be terribly satisfying to troll as you do, spreading misinformation on behalf of your “religion”. I would strongly suggest you learn your place in society, and respect those who have taken the time to attain appropriate education and experience in the field. Mr. Ewing and Prof. Hurst are quite correct in their assertions here. You would do well to listen to them and learn.

              • CaptD September 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM

                Wrong yet again on many accounts!

                Unlike you who seems to only sling names I usually point out factual info and the links to back it up.

                Name and other such stuff only make it easier for off topic comments like yours…

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM

                  C’mon, real men have a conversation and don’t pretend at knowledge. I can toy with you more than you can toy with me. Wanna proper debate? Bring it. Otherwise leave these people alone. π if you don’t get it.

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:46 PM

                  Come on bitch, do tell the crowd your name. Pussy much?

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:50 PM

                  If you’re proud of your information why hide in the weeds? Real scholars pin there data and analysis to the bulletin board. Screw the “link” shit. Get your own thinking on, troll.

                • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:32 AM

                  Like those bogus studies you post, remember those? The Yablokov non-sense that you posted, got refuted, then slunk off to another site to repost the bogus study again.

        • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM

          CaptD did you the 93 lies of the nuclear cartel, it is very interesting. let me know whenever you need help to joust these cretins

          This is a grear youtube video on the 93


          • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:33 AM

            What a thoroughly unprofessional, crack pot web site!

      • Jasoturner November 5, 2013 at 4:49 AM

        I was recently visiting Wisconsin. Apparently the windmills killed far fewer birds than the alarmists anticipated, but the effect on the bat population was very bad. The vibration of the blades attracts them, and the blade backwash (not hitting the blades themselves) when they flew by crushed their lungs. Anecdote for the record.

    • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:57 PM

      Nor can wind and solar power our grid!

      • CaptD October 24, 2014 at 9:42 AM

        Ha Ha Ha It is already powering the “grid” in many locations when used with other types of non Nuclear/Coal generation.

        We are now in the transition period where nuclear usage will continue to decline, since it is now far more expensive (cradle to grave) than Solar (of all flavors), which is now steadily replacing Nuclear and Coals market share of Energy production.

        • Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM

          “non Nuclear/Coal generation”

          Like the natural gas that must back up the solar power plants because they are so impotent and ineffectual at providing the stated name plate capacity.

          Relying on solar and wind alone is a fools errand and only fools and those who wish to make a quick buck off the subsidies will pursue it.

        • Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:50 PM

          How much land does a solar power plant take up? What is Ivanpah take up? You know, the loser that failed to produce anything close to what they hoped and claimed they could do. Are they at 6000 acres to produce 375 MWs at a measly 25% capacity factor and they have failed to do even that? A nuke plant is what, 100 acres to produce 2300 MW with a 90% capacity factor. And you want to replace nuclear with this loser? You sir, are a fool.

          • CaptD December 21, 2014 at 2:53 PM

            How much land is now covered with radioactive waste and pollution in Northern Japan because of the triple meltdown at Fukushima?

            Nuclear reactor have the ability to cause Trillion Dollar Eco-Disasters, yet you never accept that they can go BAD.

            Wind and PV will never be a threat to mankind like Nuclear, Solar is the future and if you choose to deny it, that is your choice.

            Your calling anyone that does not agree with you a “fool” simple announces to readers that you have problems dealing with opposing opinions.

        • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:37 AM

          Yea, nuclear is declining, they’re only building some 40 nuclear plants around the world instead of 100. How many millions of solar panels does it take to equal one nuclear plant?

          • CaptD January 8, 2015 at 2:01 PM

            How many millions of gallons of ☢ water is Japan now dumping into the Pacific Ocean DAILY, not to mention all the ☢ ash from Fukushima?

            • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM

              see here for reality:


              A quote from the article:

              “Available evidence leads the NRC to conclude the Fukushima situation will not affect U.S. public health. The highest amount of radiation that will reach the U.S. is two orders of magnitude—100 times—less than the drinking water standard,” NRC Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane told Bloomberg.

              Here is another excellent site I include NOT because I think you will read it, you’re not interested in truth; but because others might.


              A quote from the article:

              Is There Fukushima Radiation on North America’s West Coast?

              (The following is a summary of the Fukushima contamination issue with the North American PacificCoast. As of late July, 2014, no Fukushima isotopes have been detected along the coastline.)

              This article also contains the news links to support an objective study of the topic.

              As usual, CaptDishonest exaggerates in his self serving manner.


              • CaptD January 10, 2015 at 11:44 AM

                Until the Japanese Gov’t. allows independent scientist access to the Fukushima site, which includes the waters of Fukushima, nothing posted by TEPCO (which is owned by the Gov’t. of Japan) nothing they post can be trusted since they have a long track record of questionable news releases that have been shown to be false and misleading.

                If they have nothing to hide then why have they restricted access to only those that sign security releases?

                Any announcements by outsiders based upon TEPCO/Japanese data is therefore suspect.

                • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM

                  Until you decide to man up and defend your bogus posts or concede the point, until you stop lying about aspects of nuclear power, until the content of your posts actually reflect what you say is in them, then NOTHING you post can be trusted, in fact, it is a little too late for you given your disreputable history.

                  Somebody forgot to tell the Canadians and the US NRC, who have maintained a presence at Fukushima since the accident, that CaptDishonest said no independent people could be involved with Fukushima.

                  “January 1, 2015

                  A Canadian ocean monitoring network says the risk from Fukushima is “insignificant”. The Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM) Network involves academic, government & non-governmental organizations, and citizen scientists to acquire data and assess radiological risks to Canada’s oceans from Fukushima’s radioactive contaminants. Samples supplied by Canadian citizens and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada group show that the levels on the Pacific coast of Canada are “so low they pose almost zero risk to human or ecosystem health. Salmon remain safe to eat and the ocean is clean enough to swim in.” The Bedford Institute of Oceanography says that detectible levels of Fukushima radioactivity have reached the continental waters. Bedford’s Dr. John Smith reports, “The resulting large ocean plume of radioactivity dissipated rapidly … but a significant remnant was transported eastward. By June 2013, the Fukushima signal had spread onto the Canadian continental shelf, and by February 2014 it had increased … resulting in an overall doubling of the fallout background from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.” He adds that even at the worst-possible peak, the concentrations will be hundreds of times less than Canadian drinking water standards. As for fish, Smith says “predicted exposure level is many orders of magnitude less” than the baseline safe levels.” University of Victoria’s Dr. Jay Cullen, head of the InFORM project, says radiation levels are actually lower than in the 1960s when nuclear weapon’s tests in the Pacific drove Cesium concentrations up to 80 Becquerels per ton (cubic meter) of seawater. The Fukushima levels are not expected to go above three to five Bq/ton. https://fukushimainform.wordpress.com/

  3. jameshrust November 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    The land area estimates are in the ball park for what is really required. They assume a British home use 4300 kilowatt-hours per year; which on U. S. standards is pretty low. In Georgia we average 12000 kilowatt-hours per year. My estimate is 3300 MW nuclear, 10,000 MW wind, and 26000 MW solar. The solar or wind plants will cease operation within 25 years and will be pieces of junk carrying toxic materials that no one wants to claim. The nuclear plants will last fifty years and will generate possibly 5 times as much energy as a wind plant and 16 times as much energy as a solar plant.
    The economics will work out far better for nuclear plants. It is probably ill advised to build power plants on site subject to earth quakes and tsunamis.
    James H. Rust, Professor

    • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM

      Toxic materials? Like in batteries? That junk can replace radioactive junk: The result is a compound that cement producer Holcim can use both as a
      substitute fuel, replacing coal-ash, and as a raw material, displacing
      some of its need for virgin washed sand. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1124486/complexities-recycling-begin-bite

      • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM

        What about gallium arsenide? Its in our most efficient solar cells. Here, have a teaspoon full of the stuff. 🙂

        • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM

          There is plenty of ☢ in Fukushima and too many other locations and we are not talking teaspoons but mega TONNES of nuclear waste and worse, like corium(s)… :-0

          • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:31 AM

            Wahhh wahhh wahhh…. all we ever hear from you is Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima. Yep. We get it. You don’t like nukes. Now go away and tell other people that don’t care.

          • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:43 PM

            Could you please tell your poor, ignorant readers what corium(s) are? Simple words, please, for us simple souls.

        • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:55 PM
        • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM

          Please quote relevance in case the links die.
          While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. […]
          After installing a solar panel, “it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
          FEB. 10, 2013

          A solar-panel manufacturing plant in the eastern Chinese city of Haining has been forced to close after hundreds of residents attacked the facility in a 4-day protest over accusations the factory contaminated a nearby river, according to the BBC.
          “”” – DINA SPECTOR
          SEP. 19, 2011

          Chinese factories are known to pollute local streams, but the Chinese government should be able to handle that, unless it’s corrupt.

          • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 1:51 PM

            Not sure I understand your question. Do you not think it relevant that solar panel manufacturing is a nasty process? Do you not think that this revelation should be factored into energy choices?

            • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 7:50 PM

              I simply stated that bare links don’t say much. Those articles could disappear and then the facts are lost.

    • CaptD September 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      jameshrust – Better get your facts correct, Solar has a much longer lifespan than you list above and even you must admit that you don’t have a clue as to how good Solar & Battery tech will be in 20 years, much less 50 years from now! One thing that is for sure is that using Solar (of all flavors) will not cause any radioactive disasters for any reason!

      Here is a futuristic view of what the future has in store from a really bright guy:

      More on why nuclear is near the end of its economic lifespan despite what Pro-Nuclear cheerleaders say:

      Kurzweil: Solar Energy Will Be Unlimited And Free In 20 Years

      http://www.businessinsider.com/kurzweil-says-free-solar-energy-20-years-2014-9 via @BI_Science

        • CaptD October 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM

          Atomic Insights is just another Pro-Nuclear Pap site that fails to accept the ever increasing usage of Solar (of all flavors) globally, since without ☢ Industry/Government “incentives” to decision makers, building new nuclear would be a thing of the past.

          20 Years from now ratepayers “enslaved” to nuclear utilities will be paying huge energy bills, instead of enjoying the freedom of ever decreasing cost of new Solar (of all flavors).

          • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:27 PM

            So Capt, have you been busy posting your junk studies which have been debunked and which thus far, you have been unwilling to defend?
            How about the lies you told blaming the industry for the fact that each site must now, and for the foreseeable future, store spent fuel on site. As I am sure you are well aware, when reprocessing was outlawed, at least in this country, the government made the promise that they would build a long term repository–ie., Yucca Mt. Anti-nukes opposed Yucca Mt. as soon as it was proposed. Harry Reid put his science advisor in as the chairman of the NRC and Jazcko promptly defunded Yucca Mt. The industry had been paying billions to make Yucca Mt. a reality but were now stuck with the fuel. The NRC ruled that San Onofre and the rest of the industry could store the fuel permanently on site, something they were not happy about as they would have to monitor this fuel without it generating power. Knowing this brief history as I’m sure you do, you then lied to your readers claiming the industry, and in this case, San Onofre, reneged on their deal. You sir, are shameless, a coward for not defending your posts and a liar for deceiving your readers. Readers here, beware of Capt Dishonest, his words cannot be trusted.
            Also, Atomicinsights is a great site with excellent articles many published and commented on by leaders in the fields of science.

          • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:34 PM

            Sure, that is why a week after San Onofre shut down, electric rates went up, not down.

            See here for the math problems of renewables:


            See here where citizens in this Chinese community rioted because the local solar panel company polluted the river. CaptDishonest simply ignores such news.

            Check out the damage to this Chinese neighborhood curtesy of the wind turbine blade manufacturer.
            CaptDishonest propagandizes about wind and solar and like a used car salesman neglects to tell you all the facts–he is, dishonest!

          • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:46 PM

            So, what in particular do you find that is factually in error regarding atomicinsights? Try to do like I do with you when I refute your bogus studies. Site examples, or are you always simply going for the drive-by?

            seen this?


        • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

          Rod Adams, what a Rod

          • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:43 PM

            Have you viewed the site? If there is something objectionable, let’s hear it. Easy to make ad hominem comments, harder to back them up.

            • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:05 PM

              eff ya, I been banned from there so many times I gave up….they hate anyone going against their “party line”

              Ya I read his shite nevertheless, it tells me their game plan. I need that to shut down Nuke, which I will

              • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:25 AM

                Your reply regarding atomicinsights does not give me confidence you are telling the truth. There are regular contributors who consistently go against the majority. I haven’t seen anyone banned. On the other hand, anti-nuke sites regularly ban those who have a different opinion than themselves. I’ve been banned from many of these sites.

                • steveo77 January 8, 2015 at 6:59 PM

                  Banned by Rod, thats a fact. sheesh that asshat wants to put civilian nuclear power plants on boats, how stupid is that.

                  • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 1:36 PM

                    There are already many nuclear powered boats and ships. It is our nuclear Navy of which I was once a part. If you live in Hawaii you should be familiar with them as at least in my day, there were many home ported their.
                    Could you be more specific on why Rod banned you?

                    • steveo77 January 9, 2015 at 11:47 PM

                      Rained on his radiation circle jerk

      • Peter November 1, 2014 at 11:29 AM

        CaptD –
        “you must admit that you don’t have a clue as to how good Solar & Battery tech will be in 20 years, much less 50 years from now! ”

        Nor, you must admit, do you. And we can’t afford to wait twenty years for a very long shot to prove itself. Whereas nuclear power stations have worked for about fifty years and there are hundreds of them round the world working safely and reliably.- and cheaply
        I know, you will kneejerk Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima to claim nuclear power is too dangerous, but two of these came about due to human error operating the reactors beyond their design limits, the third because some idiot built the reactors in an earthquake zone. We have learned a lot, as the French have proved by running their whole national grid on nuclear – over 60 power stations – with no disasters., for many years.
        You will also cite radioactive waste storage as an insuperable and costly problem. But it is NOW a legal requirement for waste storage plans and costs to be included in the overall costs which must be submitted for permitting, costs which are fully recovered in the price charged to the consumer for energy, which is well below that of any other source except coal. The waste storage costs are now an order of magnitude lower than those of early reactors because modern reactors now demonstrably produce a fraction of the waste from early designs.

      • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:38 PM

        20 years, are you kidding me? We’ve been hearing this fairy tale since the early 1970’s, oh, solar is just around the corner, like the proverbial carrot before the horse. Even if true, this numbskull wants to shut all nuclear down BEFORE we’ve got the wind and solar in place.

        Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

        Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan.

        Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

        Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

      • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:36 AM

        How do you know solar has a much longer lifespan? It hasn’t been around long enough to know. You gotta believe in the future because in the here and now, solar is a loser!
        Nuclear power is our best large scale source of energy. It is clean, cheap, safe, doesn’t pollute, and is GHG free.

        • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

          yo azzhat, there are solar panels producing for over 35 years now, some almost 40

          • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM

            Hey azzwipe, it doesn’t matter if two panels happened to limp along for 40 years, let’s see how the bulk of them do. These SD school district panels didn’t last too long:


            • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:03 PM

              I have personally done 14,200 panels over 10 years, and had 3 failures, all diodes, not the cells themselves.

              I am an expert is solar energy, a Certified energy Manager, and have a Masters in Science from a big 10 U.

              I am not talking shite here.

              • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:20 AM

                Congratulations for at least exposing why you support the solar industry as this is where your bread and butter lie. Now, I won’t call you a whore for the solar industry as solar fanatics have called me a whore for the nuclear industry. As I said, I am for what works and if solar or wind lives up to all the promises its proponents have made, then I am all for it. All energy production methods should be exploited but when the solar and wind folks attack nuclear, they are doing a disservice to the state, country, and the world. When they do so with lies and exaggerations, it also impugns their own character.
                If you are the solar professional you claim to be (I’ll take your word for it), then lend a hand to a nuclear professional in promoting both solar and nuclear power. Solar’s market share is so small, it doesn’t compete with nuclear anyway. To be against nuclear, is to be for coal. A house divided cannot stand. It is your choice, promote solar all you want but if you attack nuclear, you may not be talking “shite” here, but you will be taking it.

                • steveo77 January 8, 2015 at 7:12 PM

                  laughable, I support solar because it works, the economics are great, it helps families and businesses.

                  And I have no problem with nuclear technology, but I do have a problem with mixing humans and nuclear on the same planet. That cannot be tolerated, so the solution is clear…..

                  • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 1:30 PM

                    I have little problem with solar PV precisely because it takes up no additional land space and will reduce demand on the system. Solar panel manufactures need to be more transparent in their manufacturing processes including the disposal of wastes. It is understandable why they are not for to do so would cut into their profit margin. I am NOT for solar power plants as they take up too much land(I am a power plant worker so my sympathies should be FOR solar power plants vice PV)…see the article we’re all responding to on land usage, AND solar power plants are too expensive for what you get.

                    However, my problem with renewable power ONLY folks is that it is unwise in the extreme to put all your eggs in one basket and to do so on weather dependent sources. It is a fantasy to think one can do away with nuclear, coal, and NG relying on renewables only and to pursue this fantasy would be catastrophic. I am a patriot and I am for what works, regardless of energy source, ie., I would desert nuclear power in a heart beat if something better came along that could replace it.

                    If you are willing, I’d like to discuss your statement here:

                    “…I do have a problem with mixing humans and nuclear on the same planet. That cannot be tolerated, so the solution is clear…..”

                    • steveo77 January 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM

                      So lets get to 50% renewable and then see the next step, we will be a lot smarter at that time.

                      The solution is clear….either get rid of the humans or get rid of the nuke….i am not willing to go, are you.

      • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:38 PM

        “Kurzweil: Solar Energy Will Be Unlimited And Free In 20 Years”
        Isn’t this the solar equivalent of nuclear’s “too cheap to meter?”

        More solar woes:


        Wow, these panels didn’t last long, despite all the promises.

  4. Ruth Bard November 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM

    Ah, but it seems Fukushima was only a disaster in the media. Check this out: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ And if nuclear power plants can get off this easy in earthquake- and tsunami-prone Japan, then nuclear should be a viable option almost anywhere. We Have The Technology.

  5. CaptD November 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    Beware the nuclear industry because what they say does not mean it is factual!

    Japanese governor calls out TEPCO for ‘institutionalized lying’

    Please also read the comments.

    • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:56 PM

      CaptDishonest, we’ve already seen what you’re willing to say to further your activist agenda. Try the truth sometime, it is better for your soul. By the way, still posting those bogus studies by Yablokov?

    • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:28 AM

      Beware CaptDishonest because what he says not only doesn’t make it factual, it is most likely FALSE!

      • CaptD January 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM

        Now it is name calling, how sad…
        and doing it over a year after the blog was first posted…

        • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 2:18 PM

          You are wearing the shoe because it fits so well. Do I need to remind you of the time you posted the Yablokov non-sense and when it was utterly refuted, instead of manning up to defend your post or concede the point, you slunk off to another web site to repost what you knew was bogus information. THAT is why I continue to call you CatpDishonest. Are you prepared to retract your support of such an obvious and agenda driven, bogus study?
          Also, with only one exception, every post of yours that you make great claims about (I’ve checked most of your posts but not all), ends up be a self serving exaggeration, indeed in one, the post actually refuted what you were claiming. It is illustrative of an activist who cares little about the truth but instead, is more interested in pushing an agenda, regardless of facts.

          • CaptD January 10, 2015 at 11:56 AM

            Your posts ID you, since personal attacks are the sign of someone that can not debate the facts and therefore seeks to discredit those that do not agree with your point of view!

            The truth is that Fukushima proved that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7 and cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster.

            You as a supporter of Nuclear fail to acknowledge that fact, and therefore you allow your denial to justify calling out others for not also living in denial.

            More here:
            Fukushima and the institutional invisibility of nuclear disaster – The Ecologist http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2684383/fukushima_and_the_institutional_invisibility_of_nuclear_disaster.html

  6. Scottar November 14, 2013 at 3:57 AM

    Question is what kind of nuclear will that be. There are 4th and 5th gen reactors that don’t need water for cooling and of those 2 or 3 can burn up the waste generated by the others.

    Some will claim that because we managed to out men on the moon we can make renewables viable. I say that’s like trying to put men on the moon with a sling shot!

  7. CaptD January 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

    One thing is sure, twenty years from now Solar (of all flavors) will be far cheaper than it is now and far more efficient; plus the equipment being installed today will still be in operating safely…

    The same cannot be said for nuclear, unless some amazing breakthrough is made and I believe the odds on that are slim to none… Time will tell.

    More relevant info:


  8. CaptD January 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    More on UK Nuclear costs:


    Nuclear is in reality, only a “good deal” for the Utilities and their shareholders that own them because ratepayers have to pay for everything, even mis-management (like the debacle that occurred at San Onofre NPP which left ratepayers holding a multi-billion dollar bill) and that does not even include decommissioning which has its own set of huge expenses which will continue “forever”.

    In short, nuclear is no longer fiscally acceptable, if it was then these Utilities would fund them themselves instead on requiring Gov’t. guarantees!

  9. Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 8:23 PM

    Solar panels should go on roofs, hogging no land, and on-shore wind farms can double as (hemp for blades?) crop fields. Nuclear reactors are much more efficient, but only needed where renewables don’t suffice, eg in space probes and submarines.

  10. WalterHorsting August 8, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    Molten Salt Reactors will further shrink this down due to no Pressure Dome. Due to its safety, it can truly be used in a distributed grid as well.

  11. Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 8:48 PM

    With all due respect to those reading anything i have previously and just now posted, my apologies. Sometimes one must throw the gauntlet down when confronted with arrogant pups. The internet was suppulosed to be a venue for knowledgeable exchange of knowledge – back when I punched twisted pair and spent time ducking asbestos filled steam pipes in order to bring knowledge to the world. Do have the balls to ask about that in an online debate with video from your mother’s basement or funded eco-office.

    By the way, your real name is?

  12. CaptD September 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

    More on why nuclear is near the end of its economic lifespan despite what Pro-Nuclear cheerleaders say:

    Kurzweil: Solar Energy Will Be Unlimited And Free In 20 Years

    http://www.businessinsider.com/kurzweil-says-free-solar-energy-20-years-2014-9 via @BI_Science

    • Joe Dick September 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM

      Gee, didn’t you just post this same thing on a South African site. Who pays you to do this crap, and/or why do you feel the need to involve yourself in discussions world wide? Here, California, South Africa… Read too many graphic novels as a kid? “Captain D saves the world!”.

      Unlimited and free in 20 years my arse. Lol!

  13. CaptD September 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Who questions our Nuclear Experts beliefs when it come to risk taking?

    At some point, perhaps gross denial is best left for mental professionals with other types of training.

    Case in Point, Japan is now suffering with a Trillion Dollar Nuclear Eco-Disaster, yet most nuclear experts and elected Officials consider that it, in effect, is “no big deal”:

    Polluted Ocean, N☢ Problem, it will get better after a while….

    Polluted Fields, N☢ Problem, they can remove the upper layer

    Polluted Air, N☢ Problem, they can wear paper masks for a while

    Polluted Food, N☢ Problem, they can mix the good to dilute the bad

    Polluted Homes, N☢ Problem, they can power wash them clean

    Polluted Schools. N☢ Problem, they can clean them

    Polluted Cities, N☢ Problem, they can return soon…

    The Fukushima disaster is an example of a case where something like a meltdown with a once per 100,000 years probably not only occurred, but occurred 3 times in less than a week!

    Since many elected Leaders & Nuclear Professionals were “surprised” by Fukushima, perhaps fact.org would consider a followup Blog article, asking this question:

    Are our Nuclear Power Plants really safe from whatever Nature can throw at them, because if they are not, then global Nuclear Regulators need to begin both internal and external studies ASAP to reevaluate Nuclear Safety before something occurs that we thought never would happen, AGAIN…

    • Joe Dick September 29, 2014 at 9:41 PM

      Wow, I’m sure glad I reminded you of this thread by responding to you post of over a year ago. You wouldn’t want to leave any stones unturned in your megalomaniaical quest to single handedly save the world by cut and paste links to blogs and blather outdoing the ramble of Mein Kampf!

      Watch that blood pressure and don’t forget to take your meds! Also, remember, the NSA is watching you, even though you’re online in the asylum’s library. 🙂

      • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 11:32 AM

        Joe Dick
        I hope the NSA is watching everybody, hopefully they will learn something while they are doing it!

        FYI: Adding comments after a blog is no longer current is called “top capping” and when used in large numbers to negate what is being discussed ID’s one as a wanna-be expert.

        • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM

          CaptD saves the world! All hail the mighty CaptD! Woohoooooooooooo!!!

          Ooohhh… what do you think the NSA will learn? Muahahahahahahahah….

          Take your meds, Cap. Take your meds.

    • Joe Dick September 29, 2014 at 9:44 PM

      Who watches the watchers?
      Who’s watching you?
      Who’s in your closet or under your bed,
      Waiting to shout BOO!

  14. Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 10:13 PM

    Well, a person can only help so much… Now anyone in future can know the nature of the beast: a full year later, and Dicapriesque, self important morons have nothing better to do than conversations they shut down via rudeness and links instead of open discussion. At this point, I could hardly blame the NSA and FBI for keeping tabs on things… 🙂

  15. Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 11:08 PM

    Hey, guess what! I followed “CaptD” around, made one comment on cleantechnica.com, and guess what? I’m not allowed to comment anymore. Now that’s what I call “free discussion”. NOT.

  16. Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM

    Even better, the article I was prevented from commenting on was written by, get this, “Cynthia Shahan is an Organic Farmer, Classical Homeopath, Art Teacher, Creative Writer, Anthropologist, Natural Medicine Activist, Journalist, and mother of four unconditionally loving spirits, teachers, and environmentally conscious beings who have lit the way for me for decades.”

  17. Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 11:48 PM

    I think CFACT should check this out:

    Yes, whatever you are, time to stop. Next call, FBI and Disqus. Sorry about your luck.

    Who is CaptD?

    “It” refuses to answer any questions.

    “it” even responds to websites with threads that haven’t been discussed in over a year.

    Human beings have multiple interests; CaptD has only one, which is decidedly anti-nuclear and pro-solar panel.

    Real people have multiple interests: The next iPhone, a discussion about a movie… Something… Please…

    Hey, I care about science and computing and airships, among other things. At least my Disqus account demonstrates that.

    This “it”, what ever “it” is, that can’t pass a Turing test by answering a single question…

    Pretty creepy, don’t y’all think?

    If “it” is an individual, so singly minded against nuclear powerplants, I do hope that person is on the FBI’s radar. That could be a threat to a lot of people, as single minded as this “individual” seems to be.

    If “it” is a bot or paid shill, Disqus should really be more careful, yes?

    Either way… very, very creepy.

    Yeah, my name is funny, but at least you can type in “Helium Hokum” and see a real person!

    Beware of entrance to a quarrel; it might turn out to expose nonsense you really don’t want to know exists…


  18. CaptD September 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM

    Seen this news:
    Nuclear protesters head for Japan to tell Hitachi to ‘stay away from Anglesey’


  19. CaptD September 30, 2014 at 7:15 PM

    UK. Ratepayers ===> Better start asking questions

    10 Fukushima Lessons Have yet to Bear on Hinkley Point C Nuclear Contract between UK Government and EDF


  20. CaptD October 1, 2014 at 7:46 PM

    More $AD news for UK Ratepayers:

    Britain’s nuclear clean-up bill to soar by billions ‘because of Government incompetence’

  21. CaptD October 1, 2014 at 7:57 PM
  22. CaptD October 1, 2014 at 8:01 PM

    Left unsaid in this conversation is,

    What the footprint would be of ☢ contamination if the reactor suffered a meltdown like Fukushima?

    Anyone care to guess how many acres are now contaminated in northern Japan, not to mention the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster that Fukushima caused, that is still polluting the Pacific Ocean?

  23. CaptD October 3, 2014 at 5:46 PM

    What do the ratepayers of the UK really think about the Hinkley “deal”?

    Better yet, what do they think will be the best choice of energy gratin in 20+ years?

    Here is one “glimpse” of the future that they should really consider as factual or put another way, “What type of Energy will BIG Business be using in 2020 (hint, it is not nuclear)?

    Major Corporations Like IKEA, Mars, Say They’ll Use 100% Renewable Energy By 2020


  24. CaptD October 3, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    See the latest news that should surprise nobody?

    Conflict of interest concerns over EDF’s Hinkley nuclear project approval http://gu.com/p/42443/t

  25. Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 7:07 PM

    As an experiment, let us see if captain dee is really paying attention. My apologies to CFACT in advance, but this captain thingy posts world-wide, and “it” is an interesting study in The Hiroshima Syndrome driving people to complete irrationality. Thanks in advance for the opportunity to speak here! 🙂

    • CaptD October 14, 2014 at 5:34 PM

      Joe Dick

      Ha Ha Ha That is because there is lots of Nuclear Baloney* (NB) to call out on the web!

      Here is some more info on the NRC Inspector General Report on San Onofre… http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2014/10/comments-on-nrc-inspector-general.html?spref=tw

      BTW: The Web allows anyone to post “worldwide” in fact it is the first w in the www of a web link, as in world wide web….

      * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+Baloney

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 1:59 AM

        Oh, I’m sorry; you simply dont get it. For instance, the bullshit you dish out on “the web”? You hide behind a fake name. Step out and discuss issues that you feel passionate about. Be a man. Oh, that’s right, you can’t, you intellectually emasculated user of access to which you have been provided. Step up and discuss, kid. The world deserves to know who is speaking. Thomas Paine had more knowledge, let alone courage, in in a single fingernail cell he inadvertantly wore off. Why not be loud and proud when it comes to knowledge? Oh, that’s right, you have none. Thomas Paine was worth reading because he paid to do so out of his own pocket when access to a pronting press was dear. You? You buy a computer for a few bucks and think you have something to say. Perhaps the problem is you. Ever set type to print a page? Ever learn Morse code? Temper and cut a quill into a pen? Perhaps, instead of hiding behind the pretense, like some wanna-be scarlet pimpernel, you should step up and be part of the discussion as opposed to part of the disruption.

        Just because you can post anywhere you feel like it doesn’t mean you should. The first precept of the world wide web was politeness and honesty. Don’t lecture me on bullshit about W meaning “world” as if that means anything.

        You know, I think I get it now: It’s people like you, slacking off, that cause the problems you are afraid of. Not only are your type part and parcel of the incidents you fear, you revel in the mayhem you created by saying you have

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:38 AM

        Urban Dictionary as a reference… Bwahahahaha. That is how your sort respond to such thing, yes?

        • CaptD October 15, 2014 at 2:56 PM

          Joe Dick
          “Your sort”

          I suggest that you stay on topic and stop with the name calling…

          • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM

            Oh, did I hewrt you widdle feewings? I sooo sowwwy…. not.

            Urban Dictionary as a reference is just stupid, and who’s doing the name calling here? You’re the one that brought up “nuclear baloney”, an inflammatory insult if ever there was one. I suggest you step away from the keyboard and shut the hell up. Name calling indeed.

  26. CaptD October 6, 2014 at 1:50 PM

    European Commission issues smokescreen ‘protection’ to hide consumer exposure over Hinkley C

    October 4, 2014, by Dave Toke

    Observers might be forgiven for imagining that the 35 year contract for Hinkley C, underpinned by £10 billion of state loan guarantees paying higher premium prices (£92.50) than privately built onshore windfarms receive for only 15 year contracts, will give EDF and their Chinese partners big profits.

  27. CaptD October 6, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    Austria gets its right. Says will sue if EU regulator clears giant subsidies for UK #nuclear plant plan http://reut.rs/1EgtUEq #NukeFreeCal

  28. CaptD October 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM

    From a another blog, from another trusted source:






    The Ergen Report shows that by 1967 the AEC, was fully aware of the risk of core meltdown in multimegawatt reactors and know also that some means of catching corium was imperative. Hasnt happened.

  29. CaptD October 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    France is reducing their own Nuclear Energy reliance but are happy to make the UK pay huge Energy rates!

    France Decides to Reduce Reliance on Nuclear Power http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1010082-france-decides-to-reduce-reliance-on-nuclear-power/ via @epochtimes

  30. CaptD October 16, 2014 at 3:14 PM

    Why is the UK giving Billions to the Nuclear Industry?
    Citizens’ energy movement calls for support as nuclear gets billions of pounds subsidy

  31. CaptD October 16, 2014 at 3:18 PM

    And even more Billion after to decommission old Risky ☢ Reactors!

    Built in the 1950s to push forward the UK’s nuclear energy ambitions, Dounreay is now at the centre of complex £1.6bn demolition job.


  32. Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM

    Simple question, if solar (and for that fact wind) represents “renewable energy”:

    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

    Are members of the human race so bereft of logic that this isn’t foremost in their daily lives?


  33. CaptD October 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

    Seen This:

    Sell-out on UK nuclear plan exposes Commission to legal challenges

    Unprecedented public funding for Hinkley reactors waved through virtually unchanged


    • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 2:07 PM
      • CaptD January 10, 2015 at 11:37 AM

        Ha Ha Ha What a lame statement, since the Nuclear Industry ha caused so much ☢ pollution globally!

        Perhaps we should finger the Nuclear Industry using TEPCO (which is owned by the Japanese Gov’t.) as a perfect example, since Fukushima’s ongoing triple meltdowns are still polluting the Pacific Ocean since 3/11/11, which does not include all the other BAD things happening to the 3 corium(s) below the Fukushima site.

  34. CaptD October 21, 2014 at 6:32 PM

    BBC News – Cheap African solar energy could power UK homes in 2018 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29551063

  35. Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:43 PM


    And inside the article we find:

    “National Grid says that its customers in western Massachusetts can expect a 37% rate hike on November first, due in large part to the early retirement of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Next door in New Hampshire, a 50% increase in their customer’s bills can be expected in November. Customers of the New Hampshire Electric Coop, the state’s second largest utility, will face a 12% rise in their winter electricity bills.
    What happens to those people this winter who can’t afford that increase?”

    Remember one nuclear power plant is worth more than tens of millions of solar panels. See all the pollution solar panel construction commits every day:


    • Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      More from the forbes article on the closure of Vermont Yankee NP:

      “The nuclear plant, which was selling electricity to the state for less than five cents a kilowatt hour (Electricity Prices in Vt Among Nation’s Highest), would have continued to provide Vermont with the cheapest continuous power for the next 20 years, regardless of weather or fuel prices. It was Vermont’s choice to become more dependent on natural gas and on Canadafor their electricity, to try repeatedly to shut down Vermont Yankee, to not have power purchase agreements with the nuclear plant, and to make it difficult in all ways for Entergy ETR +0.37% to keep this working plant open.”

      Did you catch that, 5 cents KWh!

  36. Investigator December 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM


    See the pollution from wind turbine blade manufacturing:






    More wind turbine woes:

    Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

    Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

    War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution. War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution.

    Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

    see Bill Gates here below:








    – Federal grant for 30% of the total project cost which also applies to Spanish, Danish, German and Chinese wind turbines thus creating jobs in those nations instead of the US. These nations would not dream to have such a measure benefitting US wind turbine companies.

    – Federal accelerated depreciation allowing the entire project to be written off in five years which is particularly beneficial to wealthy, high-income people looking for additional tax shelters.











    The above links for those who wish to do some research. Those pollution pictures are from a wind turbine blade manufacturing plant in China…so much for “green energy.”

    • CaptD January 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM

      Funny, I thought the photo was of the ONGOING Fukushima Radioactive pollution that continues to flow into the Pacific Ocean…

      • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:38 AM

        I’m not surprised your thoughts were again WRONG! You need to get out more and stop viewing those bogus sites.

  37. steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 3:03 PM

    A modern solar panel take about 4 months of power production to equal the energy used in its creation.

  38. CaptD January 8, 2015 at 2:30 PM

    Europe’s new nuclear experience casts a shadow over Hinkley

    Peter Wynn Kirbyhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/europes-new-nuclear-experience-casts-a-shadow-over-hinkley

    With two new UK reactors planned at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and three years after the meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan, it is worth considering whether the design, procurement, construction, and management of nuclear power plants is sufficiently reliable to allay public concern over radiation and value for money.

    In the case of the reactor design chosen for Hinkley C, the French-designed European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), there is not yet a finished power plant to judge by.

    The two plants closest to completion, in Finland and France, have been plagued by astonishing cost overruns and construction delays, along with a litany of complaints over design flaws, poor quality control, and construction lapses.

  39. steveo77 January 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM

    Solar PV at 3 cents per kWH, do you know what you pay?


    • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM

      Truly a blog spot with little gravitas AND a deceptive name. When a site tries to hoodwink the unwary into believing this is a pro-nulcear blog, it is an indication of how weak their case is.

      • steveo77 January 9, 2015 at 11:46 PM

        You again? My very own stalker troll, that happens when one strikes right at the truth.

      • steveo77 January 9, 2015 at 11:50 PM

        Yo IV, check out these sky high betas in cali and texas, appreciate your professional opinion


        • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 12:51 AM

          steveo, check out RadNet:


          On this same government site, we find this statement regarding beta monitoring:

          “Near real-time beta monitoring results frequently do not pass quality control criteria due to local radiofrequency interference. For this reason, near real-time beta monitoring graphs are not displayed on this site.”

          For the exact same dates and graph only for gamma, the graphs show zero rise. You can see this for yourself, just pick a location, better yet, pick a bunch of locations and see that the graphs are flat. In addition, the two nuclear plants on the west coast, Palo Verde in Arizona, and the nuke plants in Texas, have monitoring equipment that would have picked up any increase in radiation levels. As I work at San Onofre, I can assure you that we detected NO such rise in radiation levels. In short, your web site is deliberately attempting to hoodwink its audience.

          • steveo77 January 10, 2015 at 1:51 AM

            These graphs are from the EPA

            Were you involved in the lies about the like for like heat exchangers? Zing

            • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 2:57 AM

              Do you have a problem with the EPA? Did you read anything on the web site? It really is pretty interesting regardless of how one feels about nuclear power. Please, take a second look at the site because you can see radiation levels in near real time all over the country. You can see what the government is looking at as they monitor for nuclear weapons tests. Even my local anti-nuke community has this on their web site.
              There were NO lies about the like for like heat (except for those who lie about there being lies) exchangers…the NRC agreed they were like for like. Like for like does NOT mean identical.

              • steveo77 January 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM

                Of course I have a problem with the EPA, review the website, about 80% of the beta monitors are down, without comment or explanation. And they took many down on purpose right after Fuku, hide the data.

                Is that a lie of nuke “We are monitoring for nuclear weapons tests”, in San Antonio, LOL

                No they weren’t like for like and the FOIA indicating early correspondence showed that everyone knew this was a whole new design with significant issues. And it blew up in your face and now you can decommission, glad you have the work, you have a lifetime of work ahead of you. Keep up the good work.

      • steveo77 January 11, 2015 at 9:48 AM

        LOL, there is no hoodwink, author states he is a nuke professional, no jump of logic to being “pro nuke” is implied or warranted by anything on the site.

  40. Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:49 AM

    May I assume all of you saw this from the above article?

    Acres required to power 6 million homes:

    Wind 250,000
    Solar 130,000
    Nuclear 430

  41. CaptD January 11, 2015 at 1:25 PM

    More NEWS about the shaky future of New Nuclear:

    French Nuclear Giant Areva Says Future Is Uncertain, Prompting a Sell-Off



    PARIS — Areva, the French nuclear technology giant, has warned of an uncertain outlook for its business amid delays to important projects and sluggishness in the global atomic energy sector, sending its stock tumbling on Wednesday.

    The company, which is about 87 percent state-owned, said late Tuesday that it was “suspending” its financial outlook for 2015 and 2016.

    Areva cited cash flow problems related to its long-delayed nuclear plant project in Finland, on Olkiluoto Island, as well as Japan’s reluctance to restart reactors after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The company noted “the still lackluster market” for providing services to existing nuclear plants, including in its crucial home market, which draws about three-quarters of its electricity from atomic power, the highest in the world.

    The project at Olkiluoto, in the Baltic Sea, was begun in 2005 with an expected start-up date of 2009. However, Areva and its partner in the project, Siemens, are mired in a multibillion-dollar legal battle over cost overruns and construction delays with the Finnish utility TVO, which commissioned the reactor. The current schedule shows 2018 as the soonest the plant could begin operating, but even that is in doubt.

  42. CaptD January 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM

    Sun and wind could finally make electricity ‘too cheap to meter’



    Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter.

    – Lewis L Strauss, chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission, 1954.

    When Strauss first coined the phrase above he was thinking of hydrogen fusion, a technology that always seems to be a tantalising 30 years away. However even without futuristic new technology the British electricity system may actually approach this mythical situation of energy that is “too cheap to meter”.

    In the future, the industry’s costs will be determined by the number and size of power plants and turbines that will be needed, rather than the fuel burned in them. This won’t mean an end to electricity bills – but it will mean some major changes in how they are calculated.

  43. CaptD January 14, 2015 at 7:18 PM

    IoS Investigation: Officials plotted Sellafield cover-up


    Sunday 04 January 2009

  44. CaptD January 17, 2015 at 1:33 PM

    How to lose half a trillion euros

    ON JUNE 16th something very peculiar happened in Germany’s electricity market. The wholesale price of electricity fell to minus €100 per megawatt hour (MWh). That is, generating companies were having to pay the managers of the grid to take their electricity. It was a bright, breezy Sunday. Demand was low. Between 2pm and 3pm, solar and wind generators produced 28.9 gigawatts (GW) of power, more than half the total. The grid at that time could not cope with more than 45GW without becoming unstable. At the peak, total generation was over 51GW; so prices went negative to encourage cutbacks and protect the grid from overloading.

  45. CaptD January 17, 2015 at 2:49 PM

    Seen the latest?

    Solar Is Cheaper Than Electricity From the Grid in 42 of 50 Largest U.S. Cities



    Now a new report called Going Solar in America, prepared by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative, shows how the plummeting costs of going solar could already make it the more economical choice for energy consumers in 42 of the U.S.’s 50 largest cities. It found that in those cities, a fully financed solar system would cost average residential consumers less than they would pay for electricity from their current local utility.

    New York and Boston topped the list (bolding added), in large part because the cost of electricity from the grid is very expensive there. The top ten is rounded out by Albuquerque, San Jose, Las Vegas, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco. High local energy costs also account for California cities filling half the top ten slots.

  46. Michael Mann February 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM

    Despite receiving an estimated $39 billion in annual government subsidies over the past five years, the solar energy industry accounted for just one half of one percent (0.5%) of all the electricity generated in the U.S. during the first 10 months of 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/despite-39b-annual-govt-subsidies-solar-produced-05-electricity

  47. chuck_in_st_paul May 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM

    and folks thought the 19th century Robber Barons were a thing of the past. Ha!

  48. steveo77 August 6, 2015 at 12:26 PM

    solar PV at 3 cents per kWH on small scale, cheaper on larger scales!


    • Michael Mann August 9, 2015 at 12:29 PM

      Another alias? Steve/SteveO/NukPro/steveo77/FrankEnergy? Soon you will outnumber the real people like me….

    • Brian Donovan August 12, 2015 at 8:42 PM

      Yup, the Lazard version 8 energy paper agrees.

  49. Brian Donovan August 6, 2015 at 9:43 PM

    Hilarious. bet it does not include the nuclear wastes storage for a million years, of mining tailing. It of course ignores offshore wind and rooftop solar since they use zero land.

    What about the disaster areas rendered cancer causing uninhabitable lands for eons?

    thought not.

    When did we turn into morons easily programmed by the billion dollars the nuclear industry spend on PR and influence?

    Renewables are cheaper, cleaner, safer, infinite energy, and great power capacity.

    Nuclear has 2 years of our world’s energy demands, and 5% of our power demands.

  50. Brian Donovan August 7, 2015 at 3:52 PM
    • TimS August 15, 2015 at 9:50 AM

      Even so, death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
      It is astonishing, wind and solar kill much more people, as well birds, bats, and other wildlife creatures, per unit of energy generated than nuclear, even taking into account your “Chernobyl Disaster”.
      Solar and wind even for free, are still ecologically expensive, acres and more acres taken from wildlife’s habitats.

      “Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists”
      “Nuclear power – being far the most compact and energy-dense of sources could also make a major, and perhaps leading, contribution . It is time that conservationists make their voices heard in this policy area,” they say.

  51. Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 6:53 AM

    Nuclear energy is dense, safe, and reliable as well as being clean! Help the environment and people, support nuclear power!

  52. CaptD August 15, 2015 at 11:49 AM

    Anybody seen how wind turbines not only survived the Fukushima tidal wave but they provided Energy that helped save Japan when their Nuclear reactors were shut down?

    The Nuclear Utility “Gangs” run the Japanese Government and their media, so it really should be no surprise that it was not widely spread after Fukushima,

    Battle-proof Wind Farms Survive Japan’s Trial by Fire


    • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM

      Has anybody seen that the nuclear power plant closest to the epicenter and experienced a larger tsunami, was used as a refugee center and provided temporary housing?

      Onagawa Nuclear Facility Weathered Devastating March 11 Earthquake and Tsunami, Provided Shelter to Hundreds of Local Residents As a Reuters article recently noted, not only did the plant withstand the impact of the tsunami’s 13 meter (40 foot) waves and achieve a cold shutdown within 11 hours, it also provided a vital lifeline to the surrounding community, offering shelter for hundreds of tsunami victims who sought refuge at the plant for three months.

      “At that time, there was no better place than the nuclear plant,” said Hisashi Kimura, 57, who lost his home in Tsukahama, a small community on the outskirts of Onagawa just one kilometer from the plant, and now lives in temporary housing.

      • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 12:24 PM

        Michael M – The radiation and triple meltdowns are what made Fukushima so terrible, since it created all the ongoing ☢ Pollution, that has encircled the Planet many times over!

        No reactors and there will be no ☢ Pollution or Nuclear waste to deal with, which will prevent yet another Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster.

        Wind and others forms of Solar (of all flavors) will power the Planet with Clean RISK-FREE Non Nuclear Energy, if the Nuclear Utility “Gangs” stop forcing nuclear upon us! Until then expect to see ever more end users demand Non-Nuclear Energy.

        • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM

          No, the thousands of people who died in the tsunami and the many more injured and who lost all their possessions are what made the event so terrible. It is the fear mongering that is continuing to injure people, the radiation has had no measurable effect on public health…. Your perception and hype is a major part of the problem!

          • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 1:57 PM

            Michael M – Yes the loss of life and property was horrific but the lingering radioactive pollution along with the millions of tons of radioactive waste is what made it a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster.

            Your “no measurable effect” statement is sick, since it implies that the triple meltdown was “N☢ BIG DEAL”.

            • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 2:08 PM

              So you are saying forget about the thousands dead, what’s important is keeping people afraid of something that will have no measurable effect whatsoever? Does that really make sense to you? Especially when that fear creates more health problems?

              • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 2:17 PM

                MM – I said nothing about the dead, you are trying to put words into my comments which is lame; especially since you choose not to respond to may comments.

                What about the millions of tons of radioactive debris!

                • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM

                  Millions of tonnes of debris, a few kilograms of radioactive material….

                  • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 5:16 PM

                    Michael M – RE: “a few kilograms of radioactive material….”

                    What a bunch of Radioactive crapola you are pushing, you should ashamed!

                    There are tens of thousands of bags of radioactive materials sitting all over N. Japan and that is not counting all the ones that have been dumped into the Pacific Ocean or Tokyo Harbor which feeds into the Pacific Ocean!

                    Note in the video they stacked them real close to the beach in the hopes that a storm would carry them out to sea for the rest of the World to deal with!

                    Nuclear Waste: Drone buzzes Fukushima temporary storage …

                    ▶ 1:49


                    • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 6:42 PM

                      No, there is a difference between radioactive and contaminated material. Lots of soil, not much radioactive material.

                    • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 8:35 PM

                      MM – So now it is Radioactive vs Contaminated…

                      The result is that N. Japan has been “dusted” with radioactive material that is now contaminating far too much of their Country thanks to Fukushima and that does not even address all the Radioactive/Contaminated water they are allowing to flow into the Pacific Ocean…

                      I think that the Japanese Utilities “Gangs” suffer from Radioactive Sickness, since they refuse to understand that the Japanese people want N☢ More Nuclear, yet their Government is forcing it upon them.

                    • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 8:39 PM

                      No one has radiation sickness, but many suffer from stress and anxiety

                • Starviking August 16, 2015 at 12:09 AM

                  By ‘debris’, I am assuming you are talking about the tsunami debris? For that was the major type of debris generated on March 11th 2011.

                  The vast majority of that debris is uncontaminated by radioisotopes for the simple reason that most of the radioisotope releases were inland, or directly away from Daiichi to the sea.

              • Sam Gilman August 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM

                It may help to know that CaptD is one of those people sponsoring racist fantasies about the willingness of Japanese to cover up their own deaths. He believes that doctors have been ordered to withhold medical records from people and that is why we don’t hear of mass death.

                That is (a) the cruel and despotic oriental leaders of a democracy have ordered a mass cover-up of deaths, (b) doctors are complying because western notions of the Hippocratic oath are just alien to these beings and (c) the population isn’t complaining about it because they would rather die in secret than disgrace the homeland and the emperor.

                Or, you know, it’s just a feverish anti-nuclear fantasy.

        • Michael Mann August 15, 2015 at 1:43 PM

          Wrong again! The loss of thousands of lives and homes in the tsunami and earthquake are what was terrible. There is likely going to be no measurable impact from radiation. The fear you attempt to propagate however does have measurable negative health effects.

  53. PacE August 16, 2015 at 12:25 PM

    The real problem with this Country? The size of the federal
    government is crushing us under it’s weight, cost, and regulations.

    are over 500 federal agencies. The complete list is here. Review
    it, it is absurd. Send this to your local politicians.

    Under the constitution, there should only be 2 handfuls of federal agencies.

    List is here


    • Michael Mann August 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM

      I agree we need to reduce the federal government intrusiveness into areas where national security is not involved. You stil shouldn’t send people to your personal website for more information. NukPro=PacE=Frank Energy (same person)

      • PacE August 16, 2015 at 2:05 PM

        The list is there Mikey=poo

    • Brian Donovan August 16, 2015 at 7:19 PM

      It’s not the size of the gov, it’s what it’s doing. half is war and spying on the people. Too much of the rest is captive to industry, in particular the DOE, which was created from the old Atomic Energy Commission, is still 90% nuclear activities, and should never have been put in charge of our energy programs.

      I wonder what a nuclear scientist or engineer thinks the future of energy is?…..no, no I don’t

  54. TimS August 16, 2015 at 4:16 PM

    “Nuclear has very low greenhouse gas emissions”
    “Neighbors like nuclear power”
    “The more people know about nuclear power, the more they favor it.”
    “Nuclear produces tiny amounts of nuclear waste”
    “The U.S. nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 – 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.”
    “If these used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, they would cover a single football field about eight yards deep”
    “Nuclear power is safe source of electricity”
    “Nuclear has the lowest deaths per Terawatt-hour (TWh; 1 billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity generated”

  55. Brian Donovan August 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM

    Nuclear power is the most expensive energy 3 times solar, 4 times wind.

    Nuclear power is out of fuel. only 2 years of the world’s energy demand.

    Even at 2% of the world’s energy demand they need to mine the grand canyon, because ores are dropping in quality, at .02% it takes more energy than it produces. and some mines are already there.

    Nuclear power kills millions with cancers and other diseases. But don’t worry it’s only 1% of the total deaths, that’s ok, right? That’s just with 3 big disasters, the aging fleet will create many more. More than any other energy source except, MAYBE coal. What the people who deny or minimize the nuclear deaths don’t do, is use LNT.

    Nuclear waste need to be stored for a million years. If you put it all in a football field : it would explode. At the moment, on dry cask storage seem viable and has to be replaced at a cost of 2 million dollars ever 30 years.

    Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.
    search lazard energy version 8 if that does not work.


  56. Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 8:56 PM

    OMG! Ladies and Gentlemen, flee with us, while you still can! CaptD will lead the way!

    The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems (36 μSv).

    Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at US ports

    Another way to consider the concept is by comparing the risk from radiation-induced cancer to that from cancer from other sources. For instance, a radiation exposure of 10 mrems (10,000,000,000 picorems) increases your risk of death by about one in one million—the same risk as eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or of smoking 1.4 cigarettes.

    After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 20 picocuries/liter, a dose much less than one would receive from ingesting a single banana. Thus a 12 fl oz glass of the slightly radioactive milk would have about 1/75th BED (banana equivalent dose).

    Nearly all foods are slightly radioactive. All food sources combined expose a person to around 40 millirems per year on average, or more than 10% of the total dose from all natural and man-made sources.

    However, we must flee from the use of nuclear power… Wait a tick… What is the radioactivity of fleas?

    Flee the plaugue ridden naturally radioactive fleas!

    • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM

      The banana dose has been thoroughly debunked, bring back the golden oldies, huh? According
      to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
      isotopically pure potassium-40 will give a committed dose equivalent
      of 5.02 nanosieverts over 50 years per becquerel ingested
      by an average adult.[7] Using this factor, one banana equivalent
      dose comes out as about 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ≈ 78 nSv =
      0.078 μSv. In informal publications, one often sees this estimate
      rounded up to 0.1 μSv.[8]

      However, the committed dose in the human body due to bananas is not
      cumulative because the amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K)
      in the human body is fairly constant due to homeostasis,[9][10] so
      that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the
      elimination of an equal amount.[1][11]

      It follows that
      the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana
      lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, i.e. the time it takes
      for the normal potassium content of the body to be restored by the
      kidneys. The EPA conversion factor, on the other hand, is based on
      the mean time needed for the isotopic mix of potassium isotopes in
      the body to return to the natural ratio after being disturbed by the
      ingestion of pure 40K, which was assumed by EPA to be 30
      days.[9] If the assumed time of residence in the body is reduced
      by a factor of ten, for example, the estimated equivalent absorbed
      dose due to the banana will be reduced in the same proportion.

      The human body contains about
      2.5 grams of potassium per kilogram of body mass,[12]or 175
      grams in a 70 kg adult. (Not all of this potassium is 40K,
      though.) The amount of naturally-occurring potassium decay in humans
      is therefore less than 175 g × 31 Bq/g ≈ 5400 Bq of radioactive
      decays, constantly through the person’s adult lifetime.

      Proof that high altitude airline travel causes cancer.


      Proof that ad hominum is a stupid way to debate.


      Bananas are
      radioactive—But they aren’t a good way to explain
      radiation exposure

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 6:43 PM

        The banana is in your digestive system until you excrete it. It exposes your digestive tract to its full radioactivity during that time.

        Now run the numbers based on one banana a day.

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM

        You poop three hours after eating? Must be awful to be you. Breakfast at 06:00, poop at 09:00, lunch at 12:00, poop at 15:00, dinner at 18:00, poop at 21:00, midnight snack at 24:00, wake up and poop at 03:00. Amazing.

        Anyone studying your unique digestive system? Most of us poop once a day…

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 7:11 PM

        A typical human day in my world:
        Sh**, shower, shave, suit-up, shove off, breakfast, work, lunch, work, dinner, recreate, snack, sleep, repeat the next day. A banana a day is in my system 24/7/365/years of life.

        Hence my concern for your health, if anything you eat “lasts only for a few hours after ingestion”.

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM

        So, poking the obvious holes in your argument aside, the discussion was the temporary rise in radioactivity in a glass of milk around Three Mile Island was significantly less than eating a banana. If the banana dosent accumulate its effects, as you argue, then neither does the milk.

        Got it? Or are you a fanatic that can’t understand a simple fact and hijacks the conversation with irrelevant information that faails to disprove the point made like “CaptD”?

        • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 7:23 PM

          All radiation is different, prove you are qualified for this discussion. Calculate the Sv does from a 1 micron sphere of Pu typical of nuclear wastes lodged in lung tissue. Do it from the base definition of energy deposited/ kg irradiated. show your work.

          Keep your opinions and ignorance to yourself if you don’t want feedback.

          • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM

            All nuclear radiation is different? Gee, I thought it was:

            “nuclear radiation. noun. Physics. radiation in the form of elementary particles emitted by an atomic nucleus, as alpha rays or gamma rays, produced by decay of radioactive substances or by nuclear fission.”

            So by definition nuclear radiation is one thing, not “different”.

            Who said I didn’t want feedback. Yours is hilarious. Now instead of diverting attention from your epic fail on what is worse, drinking a glass of Three Mile Island milk in 1980 or eating a banana grown elsewhere, why don’t you be a good chap and at least concede that point before moving on to other arguments?

            • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 12:35 PM

              What particulates and radioisotopes in particular are in that milk? If you think it doesn’t matter you don’t understand radiation.

          • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM

            So how is Plutonium related to a glass of milk from Three Mile Island in 1980 milk being less than a banana in terms of radiation exposure? There was no Plutonium involved. Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident. The approximately two million people in the immediate area received less than one millirem above the naturally occurring background radiation of 100-125 millirem per year.

            Again, don’t be a bully and hijack the conversation to make irrelevant points. You only look silly to the audience. 🙂

            • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM

              So you don’t now what the isotopes were. You come in not understanding radiation but defending the nuclear industry and minimizing the health effect for people who tasted it. It’s takes a very high levels of radiation to get that metallic taste.

              Nuclear power industry and complicit govs do everything they can to cover up and suppress the scale of the disasters. Then the people get sick, and they don’t want to pay, so they blame it on everything else. And you help them out. Natural radiation causes million of cancers. But you try to make it sound like mothers milk.

              • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 3:46 PM

                Oh, you’re one of _those_ types. It’s all a cover up, conspiracy. Sure.

                Meanwhile, can the snarky attitude, buster. 481 to 629 GBq of iodine-131 with a half-life of 8.02 days, which was over 99% decayed in 55 days, and again was so little that it amounted to less than 1% addition to the background radiation – roughly the same as eating one banana a day, and exponentially cutting off and throwing out a greater and greater portion of the banana until you’re eating just 1% of a banana on day 55.

                Got it, buckwheat?

              • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM

                C’mon, admit that I have the facts on this. You can do it! Swallow that big ol’ pride and have a helping of crow. Humble pie for desert too. You know you want some… 🙂

                • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 4:18 PM

                  C’mon, admit that I have the facts on this. You can do it! Swallow that big ol’ pride and have a helping of crow. Humble pie for desert too. You know you want some… 🙂

                  Let’s see the isotope analysis map for TMI. Let’s see the particulate map.

                  You have nothing but industry propaganda.

                  I hope you meet some of the people who have gotten sick from TMI, and their relatives and friends.

                  “Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI.

                  • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 9:31 PM

                    So, you don’t get that the nucleus of an unstable isotope does not know or care if it is with many of few neutrons and protons when it fissions? You are the voice of reason? It sounds like you have anger issues regarding personal tragedy in your life – or have you met these people you hope I meet someday? And why do you assume I haven’t?

                    What a blowhard you are. You can’t even do basic nuclear physics, to the point that you cannot recogniise someone who can.

                    You claim radiation is different”

                    • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM

                      so you have nothing and agree with me…..

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM

                      I don’t agree with you. What part of that simple fact don’t you get? What a troll! We are having a lovely conversation about the topic of required real estate for wind, solar, and nuclear power. You want to make it about your agenda.
                      It is all the same, by definition:
                      “Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits such radiation — which includes alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays and conversion electrons — is considered radioactive.”
                      Sure, different isotopes have different half lives, different ratios and intensities of alpha, beta, gamma and electron emissions, but emissions ionizing radiation are emissions if ionizing radiation at the end of the day. Physics much?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM

                      Public comments.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:39 AM

                      What the the linear energy transfers coefficient for an alpha, a beta and gamma? from Pu typical of nuclear reactor wastes.

                      Sounds like you have education issues.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:22 AM

                      Instead of being so smug about what you supposedly know, why don’t you simply add to the conversation in your own words, and contribute knowledge instead of insults.
                      If you want to discuss Plutonium, please feel free to start a new thread. At present the topic in this thread is bananas, milk, and short lived radioactivity, and the actual effects of the “worst” accident in commercial nuclear power generation in the United States, driven way off topic if the article by random propaganda from CaptD.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:13 PM

                      I like this thread.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 7:08 PM

                      What’s the electron number density of the target? Do you want it computed by non-relativistc or relativistic physics?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 7:41 PM

                      Really, that’s hilarious, I love that science humor.

                      Human flesh. Typical Pu Alpha, beta and gamma.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 8:17 PM

                      I already answered your question. I doubt you were so cagy as to make it a loaded one. Yes, I know about the subject matter, and how it works.

                      Question for you: how many barns is a helium nucleus? Can you compute that, measure it, or do you just look it up?

                      Given your continuing bad attitude, I suspect you’re only in this not for the constructive aspects that can attain. Next time try Monty Python. Contradiction is a few doors down.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 8:24 PM

                      Really ? I have a great attitude, you seem to be a sour puss.

                      You can’t even calculate the Sv from a 1 micron Pu particle, but you think we should all treat you as an expert.

                      Dude, chill out.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 10:18 PM

                      No, I just don’t feel like taking the time to calculate the Sieverts from a 1 micron particle of Plutonium for your amusement. Besides, you didn’t even bother to set up the calculation in question. This hypothetical 1 micron particle – what are it’s constiuant parts? Give me the percentages of of it’s makeup. Of the over twenty Plutonium isotopes that exist, with half-lives of over 80 million years to 7,000 years, what is the makeup of this hypothetical micron diameter sphere lodged in a lung alveoli?

                      By the way, in terms of relevance, how did it get there?

                      Don’t be a jerk. Set up a solvable problem if you actually want an answer. You clearly like playing the “gotcha” game, gont you.

                      You’re selling. I’m not buying in.

                      You’re so smart, post the calculations and initial assumptions yourself.

                      Poser. Lol

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 10:33 PM

                      Of course I can. You pose gotcha problems, or you know not of what you ask.

                      This hypothetical one micron Plutonium sphere: What is its composition? Of the over twenty Plutonium isotopes, with half lives ranging from 80 million years to 7,000 years, what percent of each is it comprised?

                      More importantly, how did it get into an alvioli of a lung? Is the question relavant to everyday life, or something no one would ever experience except in exceptional circumstances beyond commercial power production?

                      Pose a complete problem to solve. Or didn’t you know the complexities of the universe? Gee, there’s more than one kind of Plutonium? Stopping power of materials is an old problem, solved by Niels Bohr in the 1930s.

                      You? Don’t make me say it… Must resist… Noooo…

                      You’re a homonym! Lol

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 7:18 PM

                      Or do you just look stuff up in tables guys like me compote a verify with measurements?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM

                      Sure, look it up for human flesh.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 7:24 PM

                      What’s the electron density of the target material? Do you want that computed by non-relativistc or relativistic physics?

                      Or do you just look this stuff up in tables that are created by guys like me compute from theory and verify with experiment?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 7:39 PM

                      That’s so funny, I said human flesh.

                  • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 9:38 PM

                    and I demonstrate that it’s all the same, independent of the source, but for half lives and intensity. You clim I don’t know what was emitted by Three Mile Island. I return the facts and results of the exponential decay of the element in question.

                    You are nothing but an ignorant bully scaremonger, deserving of no respect. Notice how you have no likes here? No upvotes?

                    Peddle your factless drama elsewhere. Leave the art of discussion to the adults with rational minds and the education to support it. 🙂

                    • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM

                      Right, it’s popularity contest, when all the nuclear fan gypsy agree, then we know it’s true.

                      Did you know about 50,000$ would be enough money per year to get a dozen folks to endlessly repeat nuclear power talking points on every web site related to nuclear or energy.

                      The nuclear industry spends billions per year on pr and influence. figure it out.

                    • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 9:56 PM

                      No, explain what you are trying to say, your innuendo is worthless and wastes my time. I am not paid to comment, repeating your false accusations adds nothing. What does it cost the anti-nuclear organizations for your services? Is that why you assume everyone is paid to comment?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:35 AM

                      I didn’t say you were paid to comment, just that you a paid by the industry that you praise and defend.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:52 AM

                      The anti nukes spend money, for sure. Then they accuse people that freely share their professional knowledge under no industry influence whatsoever of being on the take.

                      Interesting that you have estimates of what that would cost. Do those numbers come from your paymasters?

                      Funny how you accuse others of being drones for an industry; is that projection on your part? Is it beyond your capability to understand that an educated individual might simply choose to speak with others about Physics and engineering and health out of simple interest in the subject matter?

                      Paranoid people like you are amusing. Quick to accuse, directly or slightly veiled, others of being on the take instead of honestly discussing things and sharing ideas and information. I actually pity you. You’re so full of anger and angst! Then you bash into conversations and yell at everyone you disagree with, and

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM


                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 12:00 PM

                      …make such a din that the rest if us have a hard time continuing our polite exchange of ideas. So sure, I gave you a taste of your own medicine, because you were being rude and interrupting, and trying to change the conversation to topics you want to discuss.

                      Why don’t you go away and come back when you’ve changed you attitude? Seriously, you need to take a chill pill. I’m no industry hack, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a baseless accusation.

                      When you simmer down and apologise for jumping to unfounded conclusions, perhaps we’ll talk some more. 🙂

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM

                      Chill due, it’s you that are making absurd claims.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 6:50 PM

                      No, you absurdly accuse me of not understanding things when there is no evidence here to support that funding.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 6:56 PM

                      No worries mate, I supplied plentiful links to backup my assertions. You live in wonderful world of unicorns and honest trillion dollar companies. They say you will live longer too.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:55 PM

                      Since you refuse to start a new thread with your minutiae, I did it for you, topic and all. Have fun with it above, not here.

                      “The people that try to dominate online conversations with things they memorised from schoolbooks instead of taking the time to learn the material amuse me. They’re just like the people that proclaim that aeronautical engineers use equations that predict that bumblebees cannot fly. No, we simply use the same Navier-Stokes equations including terms that account for the relevant physics of bumblebees if that’s the problem to be solved. Most airplanes don’t fly that slow. Meanwhile, it is rather funny to be “challenged” by people that refuse to learn that atomic physics is easy compared to turbulence and quantum electrodynamics. Keep the refutable challenges up. That sort of thing is kitten play to me. (They know who they are, and so do you.). :-)”

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 12:03 AM

                      a confident and forceful statement of belief.
                      “his assertion that his father had deserted the family”
                      synonyms: declaration, contention, statement, claim, opinion, proclamation, announcement, pronouncement, protestation, avowal.

                      I’m not impressed by assertions.

                      See definition above.

                      I del in independently verifiable facts.

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 12:05 AM

                      a confident and forceful statement of belief.
                      “his assertion that his father had deserted the family”
                      synonyms: declaration, contention, statement, claim, opinion, proclamation, announcement, pronouncement, protestation, avowal.

                      I’m not impressed by assertions.

                      I deal in independently verifiable facts.

                      That is the way of Science.

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 12:16 AM

                      By the way, we do live longer because nuclear reactors exist. Radiation therapy was a stay of execution in my grandmother’s fight against Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and so you can just shut your mouth when it comes to my understanding of the biological as well as human aspects of the effects of nuclear radiation.

                      Got it? Or are you that much of a shithead?

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 3:37 AM


                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 9:09 PM

                      Still here, I see…

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM

                      Lax moderators, you should be removed.

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 3:51 AM

                      You still haven’t explained how alpha going 100 microns, beta about few mm and gamma go right through you, how on earth you can make the claim they are all the same. You are just repeating nuclear industry talking points.

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 9:08 PM

                      I demonstrated that I understand both the non-relativistc and relativistic formulations of the nuclear physics, verified by experiment, from which mere data are calculated.

                      Not “industry talking points. Physical laws.

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:15 PM

                      No you haven’t, just ignorance and pomposity.

                      Still waiting for a simple dose calculation.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:36 AM

                      It’s not the same.

                      EPA radionuclide exposure coefficients. All radiation is different
                      and routes of exposure matter.

                      You are not much of an engineer.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM

                      It is all the same, by definition:

                      “Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits such radiation — which includes alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays and conversion electrons — is considered radioactive.”

                      Sure, different isotopes have different half lives, different ratios and intensities of alpha, beta, gamma and electron emissions, but emissions ionizing radiation are emissions if ionizing radiation at the end of the day. Physics much?

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 12:12 PM

                      Your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.
                      gamma will go right through you body, beta about 10 mm, alpha about 100 microns.

                    • Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 6:48 PM

                      Why do you assume that I don’t already know that? Did I say anything to the contrary? Does saying things that are untrue make you feel good?

                      Check the attitude at the door.

                    • Brian Donovan August 19, 2015 at 6:52 PM

                      “but emissions ionizing radiation are emissions if ionizing radiation at the end of the day. ”

                      So an ingested particle that irradiates your entire body, is absolutely the same as an ingest particle that irradiates 100 microns of your body, both with the same energy?

                      Did you check your intelligence at the door by accident?

              • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 5:10 PM

                Brian, it seems to be you who is misinformed, Joe seems to have a good handle on the facts, you on the other hand are repeating anti-nuclear memes which have no basis in fact.

                • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 5:14 PM

                  Out of fuel, not future, why don’t you find a new hobby.

                  meanwhile I just linked. TMI is just another cover up. You want us to be so naive as to not imagine all the things a trillion dollar industry would do to protect their investment.

                  The people reported symptoms that indicated doses 1000 times greater than the official claimed. So they refused to people the people, ordinary people who would not know what symptoms indicated high doses.

                  As usual big money run roughshod of the citizens, and the fan boys cheer.

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 9:36 PM

        Okay, I cannot resist explaining the point in excruciating detail as a preemptive strike against the fanatics.
        1. Milk in the region around Three Mile Island showed an increase in radioactivity for a period of time that has long since become undetectable.
        2. A single banana contains more natural radioactivity than the natural radioactivity plus the added radioactivity in a glass of milk at that time.
        3. The radioactivity is either:
        a. Contained predominantly in the milk solids and fruit solids and excreted by the digestive system daily
        b. Contained predominantly in the milk fluids and fruit fluids and eliminated from the circulatory system via the kidneys more frequently
        c. A combination of both
        4. The proprtions involved in (3) are indeterminate at this time, but likely equal pending further data.
        5. Exposure to the radioactivity from the banana, given its higer content of naturally occurring radioactivity over the combined radioactivity natural and induced temporarily in the glass of milk, exposes the person consuming the banana to more radiation than if they had consumed the glass of milk.
        6. If one is worried about miniscule consumption of foods containing radioactivity:
        a. If you like a banana and milk at breakfast in the neighbourhood of Three Mile Island in 1979-80, and you are concerned about elevated levels of radioactivity in your breakfast, have your banana and skip the milk. Fruit is good for you!
        b. Even better, drink the milk and skip the banana – except that you get the fats from the milk and didn’t get your serving of fruit for the day.
        c. If you’re paranoid, don’t eat anything and waste away like a crack addict.

        This is called logic. Thinking. It is the exact opposite of irrational reaction and fear.

        Got it? Damn I hope so. It’s really simple. If you can get this, there is hope that you can be learn things.

        If not, rage on against the imaginary machine! Even the village of 100 should include at least one lunatic as an example to others.

        (Oh dear. Here come the detractors to basic logic… LOL)

        • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 9:41 PM

          Why would I care?

          • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 12:04 PM

            Clearly you don’t care. Which is sad, as I did make a valid point.

            • Brian Donovan August 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM

              no, you didn’t.

        • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 9:44 PM

          please, I don’t care what you think, haven’t you figured that out?

          • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM

            No, of course you don’t care. Don’t you understand how debate works? What I say is for the audience to hear and care about, and your opinion of what I say means beans to me. My audience approves and is interested. How’s yours doing? Any feedback or upvotes? Maybe no one is listening to you.

        • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 11:30 PM

          Try another hobby.

          “Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI.

          • Joe Dick August 18, 2015 at 12:05 PM

            Not a hobby. Part of my profession as an engineer.

  57. Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 8:59 PM

    Minions are evil! Their banana invasion with its naturally occurring radioactivity must be stopped! 😉

  58. Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 9:18 PM

    Sorry to cloud your issues with the facts, “CaptD”, but ” Facts”, as John Adams said, “are stubborn things.” So am I.

    Meanwhile there are many that don’t call a Captain “Sir”: Major, Lt. Col., Col., Brigadier General, Lt. General, Major General, and General of the Army, Rear Admiral (lower half), Rear Admiral (upper half), Vice Admiral, Admiral, and Fleet Admiral.

    Clearly you never served.

    • CaptD August 17, 2015 at 1:36 PM

      Joe D – You are still fishing and talking about fishing, Captains of large vessels don’t have to be in the Navy to be referred to as Captain; there are many more examples.

      Clearly your self serving “blanket statements” are, like most of your replies, just “silly”.

      • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 6:48 PM

        I’m speaking to the audience. That’s how debate works. I keep getting upvotes. Clearly some people agree with me.

        I don’t care about convincing you; you’ve made your mind up and closed it. I enjoy sharing thoughts with people that like discussing things and learning new things.

  59. CaptD August 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM

    I figured I would post this since many don’t read all replies to comments:

    The Hinkley C project is now mired down in lawsuits and that is a great thing for all the UK ratepayers that will have to “pay” for too high priced Nuclear Energy for decades to come, plus that is before they have to decommission it and try and store the ☢ Waste someplace.


    Nuclear IS TOO Expensive for everyone except those that profit from Nuclear!

    Here is another example from the US for the operating cost of a new reactor:


    That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

    US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

    If new Vogtel energy costs 18 c/kWh who is going to profit from using it?

    Ratepayers will be held in Energy Slavery as long as Vogtel operates figure 20 to 40+ years as regulators force them to buy Energy instead of installing their own residential Solar.

  60. Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

    Let’s just end this argument about nucelar power right now.

    Nuclear is out of fuel.

    The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.

    • Michael Mann August 17, 2015 at 6:19 PM

      Read it, there is plenty of fuel and it doesn’t even count thorium…

      • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM

        Why doesn’t the IAEA count it?

        Why don’t you remember that there are only half the proven reserves of thorium as uranium?

        Another deliberate attempt to mislead people away from the awful truth about nuclear power:

        It’s out of fuel.

        What would I expect from an industry paid comenter.

        • Michael Mann August 17, 2015 at 7:51 PM

          Yes, and the proven reserves of petroleum run out in 1985 after reaching peak in 1971 By observing past discoveries and production levels, and predicting future discovery trends, Hubbert used statistical modelling in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1971….. The report I read said there was much more fuel than we could use, but the price would increase, of course that’s only if there are no new discoveries between now and ten, they also say the development of breeder reactors would make the fuel last pretty much forever, it also reported 4x10E9 tonnes of uranium in the ocean .. that is a bit more than you claim in total. There have already been breakthroughs in uranium extraction from seawater.

          • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 7:58 PM

            Science fiction is all you desperately cling to.

            Out of fuel without a miracle,

            4 times the cost with now miracles, miracles will cost many times more.

            millions of cancer and other deaths.

            can’t be built up because of material and industrial limitations.

            you unicorns are dying.

            Investors, if any are reading this, nuclear is a dead end, that should be obvious by now. Invest in solar, wind and waste to fuels and hydro. They have free fuel forever, cost 25% of nuclear too. And they can be installed much faster.

            • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 12:47 AM

              Why do you like unicorns so much?

              • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 4:13 AM

                BTW, solar is 1/3 the cost of nuclear and wind is 1/4 as much, un subsidized LCEO. Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.


                Solar has been doubling every couple years. Everybody IS installing it. 55GWp this year alone, 10 nuclear power plants worth,. about 220 GWp cumulative. about 40 nuclear power plants worth. With free fuel forever, no meltdowns.

                That doesn’t even count the massive amount of solar hot water. Which about another 200 GWth AVERAGE, not peak.

                It’s over, solar, wind and renwable win, it’s only the trillion dollar fossil and nuclear industries multi billion dollar propaganda campaign that keeps the people conned and the govs bought. It’s only a matter of time, and not long at that.

                • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM

                  It can’t be a faction of the cost. There are no solar powered solar panel factories. Solar panels don’t generate enough energy in their lifetimes to make copies if themselves an provide a surplus of energy to the grid. If solar was capable of that, they’d go off the grid and crank out solar panels with their own product. If they’re going to talk the talk, they should walk the walk. Guess what? They can’t.

                  • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 7:58 PM

                    Guess what, there are no nuclear power gas diffusion plants, either.

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 9:04 PM

                      The process is self-sustaining, and produces more energy than required to build more plants and supply surplus energy- unlike windmills and solar panels.

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:19 PM

                      Gas diffusion uses a GW of electricity nearly always from fossil fuels, usually coal. What other misconception do you need corrected?

                      The EROI for solar is 1.5 to 3 years for AZ to Alaska., Nuclear is 10-15 years with good ore. Nuclear EROI is infinity with .02% ore.

                    • Mike Carey August 21, 2015 at 1:53 PM

                      Hi Joe,
                      A few of us have watched Brian play this game of his for a while now. He acts like the little girl on the school playground who teases the boys just enough to get them to chase her around the jungle gym. It’s a waste of “energy” to try reason or fact based arguments. At some point we learned that it was best not to feed the trolls.

                    • Joe Dick August 21, 2015 at 6:50 PM

                      Yes, but it is great debate prep! They say, “Never argue with a fool; people might not know the difference.” I’m glad to know that people do know the difference in this case. 🙂

                    • Joe Dick August 21, 2015 at 7:07 PM

                      Your comment made me think of a thing a good friend says: “Feed ’em beans and blow ’em up!”

                      I don’t mind trolls at all. In fact, I like wearing them down, closing their issues with the facts. 🙂

                    • Mike Carey August 22, 2015 at 12:14 AM

                      It’s great fun to follow along, Joe.

                    • Joe Dick August 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM

                      I have a habit of breaking things down to the basics and conveying those thoughts. Unlike the detractor trolls, I get invited to publish from time to time:

                    • Brian Donovan August 23, 2015 at 4:00 AM

                      Why don’t you use hot air, you seem to have plenty of it.

                      let’s see the dose calculation, genius.

                    • Joe Dick August 23, 2015 at 4:08 PM

                      Gee, I almost missed your comments, being that it’s buried in all the likes I get.

                      You want to see the calculation? You didn’t say the magic word…

                    • atomikrabbit August 23, 2015 at 8:57 PM

                      Nicely written article – the only thing I was waiting for was a discussion of the radiogenic origins of terrestrial helium, which are captured ancient alpha particles shot from the nuclei of the 2-6 ppm uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust.

                    • Ike Bottema August 22, 2015 at 7:43 PM

                      Guess what, there are no nuclear power gas diffusion plants, either.

                      Wow! You got me on that one Brian. Not sure why we’d need one but OK you’re right, there are no nuclear power gas diffusion plants. Anyway somehow that puts a stake though the heart of Joe’s point I suppose?

                  • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:02 PM

                    Your “logic” makes no sense. Did you think that solar would lift itself up by it’s own bootstraps? Of course it has to use the existing energy sources. Solar pv panels have an energy break even time of 1.5 to 3 years, for AZ to Alaska. A renewables system would include solar, wind, hydro and waste to fuels. Tell us all where that has happened yet?

                    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 9:02 PM

                      It’s not “my” logic. It is science. You seek only to shoot the messenger.

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:04 PM

                      No DIck, it’s not. Nuclear does not make it’s fuel using nuclear. Nuclear does not min or construct the building with nuclear, therefore, by your illogic, nuclear cannot be worth it/.

                    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:20 PM

                      No, it’s you nonsense that you seem to love to parade for the other nuclear fan folks. You are embarrassing yourself.

          • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 9:15 PM

            Wow, I have never seen you so desperate.

      • Brian Donovan August 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM

        Are you proud of the fools who faved you?

  61. CaptD August 17, 2015 at 8:55 PM

    Even French nuclear scientists and engineers are concerned about Chinese reactors:

    China Regulators … http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-18/french-nuclear-regulator-says-china-cooperation-lacking

    And elsewhere

    Greenpeace nuclear expert: ‘There’s always something’ | Europe | DW.COM | 14.08 https://shar.es/1tDWha

    • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 6:05 AM

      Greenpeace Nuclear Expert/ that is an Oxymoron….

      • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 6:10 AM

        Does she have a degree in Art?

        • Starviking August 18, 2015 at 7:43 AM

          Her LinkedIN profile has the strange facts that she went to secondary school from 1981-87, and did a PhD in Physical Chemistry from 1982-1992!

          From Google Scholar, her research seems to have been on using lasers to clean old paintings.

          Despite nuclear providing 50% of Belgium’s electricty – all low carbon, she seems to think it must be gotten rid of to fight climate change…

      • CaptD August 18, 2015 at 12:37 PM

        MM – More name calling from you while sidestepping the discussion to post more Nuclear Baloney* (NB).


        • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 11:34 PM

          Really, a link to a post you authored at urban dictionary? Is that supposed to impress people? Is this your contribution? Pretty ironic that you accuse someone of name calling when that is exactly what your NB nuclear baloney is … irony is something you’re good at, even if it is by accident. LOL

          • CaptD August 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM

            MM – Describing what you are doing, (ie. posting ever more ☢BS) is far different than calling others out as “being unqualified” according to you, just calling them names or just unqualified to post comments.

            Post comments with info and/or comments about the topic being discussed, otherwise what you are doing is trying to Bully those that post comments, which is not allowed.

            Try posting some “real” comments like this:

            The momentum to stop using Nuclear is growing Globally and if it were not for the Nuclear Utility “gangs” donating/controlling Governments we would be decommissioning all nuclear reactors. In the years since Fukushima you have continually supported the use of Nuclear but more reactors are being decommissioned than ever before, so the percentage of Energy generation from Nuclear is dropping Globally as both Wind and Solar Generation costs keep dropping almost monthly. Solar (of all flavors) along with battery technology will shift even more away from accepting Nuclear Energy and that is if nothing BAD occurs.

            Even French nuclear scientists and engineers are concerned about Chinese reactors:

            China Regulators … http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-18/french-nuclear-regulator-says-china-cooperation-lacking

            And elsewhere

            Greenpeace nuclear expert: ‘There’s always something’ | Europe | DW.COM | 14.08 https://shar.es/1tDWha

    • Michael Mann August 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM

      Self proclaimed expert? Would I know any papers she wrote or cores she designed? Is she a health physicist, reactor engineer? I couldn’t find her qualifications in her bio, what makes her an expert?

      • CaptD August 19, 2015 at 10:35 AM

        MM – You are always asking for info about others.

        I challenge you to post some info about yourself and include the titles of the “papers” you have published, without asking others to do it first.

  62. Joe Dick August 19, 2015 at 11:49 PM

    The people that try to dominate online conversations with things they memorised from schoolbooks instead o taking the time to learn the material amuse me. They’re just like the people that proclaim that aeronautical engineers use equations that predict that bumblebees cannot fly. No, we simply use the sane Navier-Stokes equations including twens account for the relevant physics of bumblebees if that’s the problem to be solved. Most airplanes don’t fly that slow. Meanwhile, it is rather funny to be “challenged” by people that refuse to learn that atomic physics is easy compared to turbulence and quantum electrodynamics. Keep the refutable challenges up. That sort of thing is kitten play to me. (They know who they are, and so do you.). 🙂

    • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 1:29 AM

      Without radioisotopes, my grandmother’s cancer would not have been discovered and treated. Thank you nuclear physics, radioisotopes, the nuclear reactors that produce them, the scientists and engineers that made that possible, and the physicians that put the products of that ingenuity to use.

      • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:40 PM

        Appeals to emotion, for someone with an obviously fake name. why should we believe you? Nor does it matter. medical radiotherapist can be made in accelerators or small custom non power reactors.

        • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 8:56 PM

          I thought you said, “Bye.”

          • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:07 PM

            Didn’t they delete you obscene comment?

        • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 8:56 PM

          Appeals to logic and reason.

          • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:07 PM

            Yes, i do, you don’t. You pretend and condescend and swear a lot.

            Go on, prove how smart you are, calculate the does from a micron Pu particle. It’s a little geometry, and the rest is arithmetic.

            Prove you aren’t a phony.

    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:39 PM

      Please, you claim all radiation is the same. Alpha’s penetrate 100 micron of flesh., bets’ 10 mm or so, gamma 10 feet. Yet they are all the same to you.

      go ahead, prove how smart you are. calculate the Sv from a 1 micron Pu particle lodged in human flesh. Use the basic formula. energy/mass of tissue irradiated.

      You will have to use linear energy transfer coefficient for the type of radiation. BUt you think they are all the same.

      You use a fake name, I can see why.

      • Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 9:01 PM

        You clearly do not understand nuclear physics. The radiation from fission is all the same thing. There are only so many subatomic particles! Do you feel they have “qualities”, that somehow they know what nucleus they came from? Do explain…

        By the way, I thought you said, ” Bye.”. Clearly we cannot trust anything this guy says!

        • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:04 PM

          No Dick, you don’t know what you are talking about. do the calculation. prove it. you can’t you are a pretender.

        • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 9:20 PM

          When did you first feel that all nuclear radiation was the same?

          do the calculation. you can’t you are faking it.

  63. PacE August 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM
    • Michael Mann August 20, 2015 at 3:57 PM

      PacE Aka NukPro is just trying to get people to click on his personal website.

    • Michael Mann August 20, 2015 at 3:59 PM

      Except nuclear energy is more reliable, less damaging to the environment and safer….

      • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM

        No. nuclear shut down in heat waves, nuclear spread deadly radiation for millions of years. nuclear mining is environmentally disastrous. Nuclear power is out of fuel.

        • TimS August 21, 2015 at 2:42 PM

          Nuclear faces political barriers, dishonest fear-mongers/pathological liars, fraudulent green lobbyists and sensationalist mass media, while wind and solar that is provoking more fatalities and environmental impacts than nuclear per gigawatt produced, aside intermittences compensated by fossil fuels, is still heavily rewarded with governmental subsidies.

          • Brian Donovan August 21, 2015 at 7:49 PM

            LOL! The DOE IS NUCLEAR. The DOE was formed from the Atomic Energy Commission is is still 90% nuclear related activities. The presidents personally promoted nuclear around the world. You should see someone about that persecution complex. Nuclear is the bully on the block. Nuclear gets 50 times the gov breaks solar does and has for 60 years.

            Let’s remove all gov breaks, and nuclear will have to shut down the very same day for a lack of liability insurance, no one to deal with the wastes either.

            Nuclear mining is a disaster, digging out as much rock as coal does per MWH.

            • TimS August 21, 2015 at 9:09 PM

              wind and solar uses rare-earth metals, mining one ton of rare-earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.

              “Every ton of rare earth produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater plus about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).”

              • Brian Donovan August 21, 2015 at 9:14 PM

                What specific rare earth does s silicon solar panels use, and how much?

                Every tons of uranium produces more of all the same things.

                6B tons per year.

                • TimS August 21, 2015 at 9:29 PM

                  Rare earths are needed for batteries, electronics, magnets and other high-tech products for solar and wind.
                  “Solar cells rely on fossil fuels for mining, fabrication, installation, and maintenance. They also require conventional power plants to run along side them at all times, or storage mechanisms such as batteries, which impose additional layers of environmental impacts.”
                  “Furthermore, the photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest growing emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), three greenhouse gasses that have a global warming potential 10,000 to 24,000 times higher than CO2 according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

                  • Brian Donovan August 21, 2015 at 10:20 PM

                    No tims, and no matter how many times you repeat your talking points it’s all nonsense. Solar has a better EROI, so whatever energy solar takes, nuclear uses 3-4 times as much.

              • Brian Donovan August 21, 2015 at 9:18 PM

                Every tons of uranium fuel produced 150 tones of UF6.

                Every MW of solar solar panels uses zero rare earths.

                Every MWH of wind uses zero rare earths.

                That’s for some 90% of solar and wind.

                All nuclear produce massive pollution of the exact same type as rare earth mining, but 6B tone of it, not 100 k tons.

                Nuclear needs 60000 times the deadly materials as the entire rare earth industry. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/rare-earth-elements-mine-tailings/story?id=19739320

              • Brian Donovan August 21, 2015 at 10:31 PM

                Wind and solar don’t use rare earth. Nuclear does.

                Nuclear processes 60,000 times the rare earth container ores as the rare earth miners use.

                Rare earth mining pollution is a nuclear problem, not a solar or wind one.

                • TimS August 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM

                  You hate the truth.
                  Wind and solar is not energy dense thus it needs more materials and more acres thereby contaminating large wildlife’s habitats; it is not clean and neither good for the environment.
                  Nuclear is far more ecologically friendly per gigawatt produced.

    • TimS August 21, 2015 at 2:43 PM

      “Western Europe will depend on .. Russian gas and LNG via Belgium from US shale. Or coal.”
      Excluding hydro, 100% renewable(wind/solar) energy, without large areas/huge ecological impacts, is a pipedream.
      “wind and solar in particular—is simply too volatile from minute to minute to produce the steady power we need.”
      “Wind power suffers from the same problems—even worse, actually, since wind is less predictable than the sun.”
      Our best option is nuclear power, compact and dense, much more ecologically friendly.

      • PacE August 21, 2015 at 3:24 PM

        2 bit capping troll

        • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 10:49 PM

          CaptD says
          CaptD Michael Mann 4 hours ago

          MM – My point is that most that post Pro-Nuclear (Anti-nuclear) comments and especially those that seek to shift the decision to something else like the person making the comment, are doing it because they hope to get something in return, which is THE reason they (don’t) support nuclear…

          It is easy to spot these comments, just look for comments that have ZER☢ o do with the discussion topic, like most of yours are…

    • Brin Jenkins October 31, 2015 at 10:15 AM

      Opinion only. Try running an electric train on photo voltaic or wind. You can’t and we have no energy storage to cover a day without wind or sunshine. In the UK our demand peaks at around 60 Gw. this we can not cover from stored green energy.

      • PacE November 7, 2015 at 2:24 AM

        LOL, poor fools duped into nuclear.

  64. Joe Dick August 20, 2015 at 11:29 PM

    Nuclear physics remains the preeminent triumph of human intellect. We have not had a global military conflict in over 70 years. Why? We created a weapon of such incredible destructive power that the human race ceased such wasteful and futile endeavours – something Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling vainly hoped to accomplish with his eponymously named rapid fire gun. For the first time since the dawn of civilisation the exponential increase in deaths by warfare came crashing down to an unacceptable, yet much diminished rate.

    Would you rather the periodic armed conflict continue with mechanical and chemical means of ferocious maiming death, the toll rising up an ever increasing precipice? I think not.

    Nuclear physics beat that sword into a ploughshare, and has provided electrical power in an atmospherically clean manner ever since. It is a complicated innovation, and things have gone wrong in our mastery of it. Thus is true of everything in our industrially advanced civilisation. People are fallible, and they will make mistakes, sometimes out of personal weakness, and in other cases even when they have the best intentions. We learn from such things, and we move forward, logically, despite those in every age who recoil against progress while having nothing demonstably better to offer as an alternate path forward. Snake-oil salesmen opportistically appear, prying on ignorance and technical illiteracy, promising much to the luddites, and deliver nothing when the day is done.

    Nuclear science has done far more good than harm – by many orders of magnitude. The death toll alone from wat was worth the magnificent and noble effort put forth by what we now call “The Greatest Generation”. They rose to the occasion when all might have been lost to a new dark age and secured our future. Some may think it is a precarious present we have inherited, but it is far less precarious than the times they lived in in every respect. We should respect the advancements they accomplished with meagre tools like slide-rules, drafting tables, and intellect, and build upon their hard-won contributions toward the betterment of the human race.

    “Betterment?”, some may ask – or swear and spit and proceed to spout a litany formed of provincial small-mindedness. They are the sort that don’t want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing, and think we should share in their ignorant view of the world.

    Yes, betterment. If an end to global total war was not enough, consider the peaceful use of this incomparable knowledge: The diagnosis and healing of of disease, the ability to measure the universe, into the past with Carbon 14 and to the planets with nuclear powered systems aboard spacecraft that explore the furthest reaces of our solr system and beyond. We learned much about the Moon and about our own planet by devices powered by nuclear fission and its products. The list continues to grow, a cornucopia of benefits to humans everywhere. And again, an immense source of power that has and continues to ease the burdens and extend the length and comfort if our lives.

    To those that are filled with irrational and uneducated fear of nuclear energy, I ask: Why not spend all that effort on something useful? I’ve seen the same people who were against the Concorde and what would have been its occasional sonic booms take time out if their lives to travel just to hear the same from a space shuttle orbiter. I’ve seen them whine about the crash safety of automobiles and then drve on public roads like some sort of personal NASCAR track. They get on line cursing the name of Edison with devices that run on direct current powered by storage batteries, and in the same breath applaud the name if Tesla, who never worked on improving storage batteries, DC motors, or the development of electric cars.

    I don’t mind those that attack my contributions to a proper dialogue. They lack depth, eloquence, and a big-picture understanding of our universe. They pick a thing and condemn it because they cannot see the benefits of things and that we have such things _ because_ the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

    What I do mins is all that wasted effort, which only serves to prevent the advancement of everything. Oblivious to the consequences of their irrational fear, they obstruct the arrival of the future that will be with dead ends and cul-de-sacs of unattainable dreams and blind faith wishes.

    Someday, perhaps, this interconnectivity called the Internet may lead to proper discussion and free exchange of ideas, independently verifiable as is the way of Science. Until then, we will have to endure the counterproductive static issuing forth from people that not only cannot see the forest for the trees, but can’t even see the nearby trees because they myopically stand so close to just one, thinking it to be the entre universe.

  65. Joe Dick August 21, 2015 at 8:13 PM

    I find it astounding that a brief one hundred word artlcle that states a simple fact can elicit such emotion from activists. Clearly CFACT was right on point to post it, and yes clearly the activists do not want you to know the details presented here. What are they afraid of?

    Furthermore, let’s address the last sentence of the article, and make the article and the graphic complete:

    “The U.K. should not only want you to see this, it should add in coal and gas as well.”

    The more that people shout about a thing being wrong, the more I want to look into it. 🙂

  66. Joe Dick August 22, 2015 at 12:01 AM

    There was an English chap they said would never build a self-regulaying clock that could determine longitude. He’d already used two materiala with different expansion rates to make self-regulating pendulum clocks with a “gridiron” suspending the pendulum. He also managed to work that into a mechanical system that told time so well at sea that sailors could know their longitude. Despite his success in terms of fulfilling the terns of the prize set forth by Queen Anne, he had to fight his detractors and finally win his just reward for fulfilling the terms of the contract.

    John Harrison was the son of a carpenter, and practiced carpentry in clockwotk as a profession before moving into using brass. He designed self-regulating machines before the concept was even named.

    Post WWII, nuclear fission still depended upon means outside their design to maintain stability. People today are quite happy to trust cruise controls in their cars, computers running their cars engines, sensors that bleep when they turn the turn signal onand there is a car alongside in the next lane. They don’t notice when they need to pay attention to the car in the next lane, when to change their oil or check their tire pressure unless told to, or simply to look in the mirrors when changing lanes.

    I had a long stay, in a Midwestern town, that had a museum of clocks, with reproductions of major advancements in timekeeping since and before Harrison. The people stopped and stared in amazement that simple yet elegant mechanical devices could do what their wristwatch could do, be it a cheap one from a gas station or thousands of dollars from Switzerland.

    Sure, nuclear power stations have run amok – because if failures in external control systems. Some had back-up systems that did the job, some were less intelligently designed. Despite that, they’ve served us well, these messages seen marvels performing alchemy beyond the dreams of proto-chemists.

    Now finally, what if the vacuum tube and calculating machine infatuation was finlaaly at an end – and old Science was new again? Every aeroplane’s wings have dihedral, that angle the wings tip up at so they tend to stay level in flight. The forks of every bicycle bend or angle forward, which is why the front wheel allows you to use supposed talent to take your hands off the handlebars.

    For the first time since the gridiron of Harrison, Luke the ancient Greek that pondered stability in the form of a Ball in a bowl always finding its proper place, we have this ability to build a stable, self-regulating energy release.

    Are you the type that would get angry at someone that built a perfect campfire that in one go could take a mere spark and provide self-sustaining heat without stoking or tending? No, wait, thus is the time when television features stupid people watching stupid people that are “Naked and Afraid”.

    There is a wonder of 20th century Science that is finally being realised. A seemingly simple device that does not need control systems to function – just like Harrison’s navigational chronometer.

    Solar and wind have had four decades of attention during my life, and like the next ice age an then global warming, they have yet to happen. Old school self stabiizing design got left behind in the rush to embrace automation in the 1959s.

    So I have to ask: What’s wrong with the molten salt reactor? 🙂

  67. Joe Dick August 22, 2015 at 12:18 AM

    The facts outweigh opinion no matter how you play the game.

    • Brian Donovan August 22, 2015 at 12:23 AM

      So you still can’t calculate the dose from a 1 micron Pu particle. I though so.

      You just want to waste our time and disrupt the conversation.

      • Joe Dick August 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM

        Who is this “our”? Got a mouse in your pocket?

      • Michael Mann August 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM

        Brian you waste everyone’s time with your poorly thought out challenge. What is the average wind speed air velocity of a leaden swallow?

  68. Brian Donovan August 22, 2015 at 12:20 AM

    The facts outweigh opinion no matter how you play the game.

    nuclear is 4 times the cost of solar and wind and will face a shortfall of uranium in 10 years.

    • TimS August 22, 2015 at 8:30 AM

      The facts:
      Germany (wind/solar)(19.21 ¢/kWh) is almost 2 times higher than in France (nuclear)(10.74 ¢/kWh).

      Furthermore, nuclear cost can be dropped below 3¢/kWh with safer newer reactors.

      • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:42 PM

        Well said, sir.

    • Brian Donovan August 26, 2015 at 12:58 PM

      link to prove assertions:
      Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.
      We need to go solar, wind, hydro, waste to energy and fuels from air,water and electricity as fast as possible.
      We are facing peak coal, oil and nuclear way sooner than we thought.

      The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
      “As we look to the future, presently known resources
      fall short of demand.”
      Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
      fig 20 also show shortfall.

      In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order.

      The 2014 version is essentially the same conclusion but turned into a giant marketing paper with fantasy and propaganda filling the wholes.
      For ins fig 2.11 shows exactly the same date of shortfall: 2025. But they cut the diagram off before 2050 where it would be embarrassing to see 10% of the demand available from RAR and proven technologies.

      • Brin Jenkins October 31, 2015 at 10:08 AM

        A recipe for power blackouts. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

        • Brian Donovan October 31, 2015 at 3:39 PM

          Search solar wind stabilize the grid.

          Solar and wind are credited with preventing blackout. Solar peak has prevented another French nuclear power shut down.

          The two most reliable grid on the planet are the most renewable: Germany and Denmark.

          Search nuclear power causes blackout

          As usual, the billion dollar nuclear power pr and influence campaign uses opposite world arguments

    • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:42 PM

      Show me the raw data.

      • Brin Jenkins October 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM

        There is non that stacks up. Nuclear run flat out all the time producing max power consistently. With green you must factor in a five to tenfold overcapacity to cater for cloudy Winter days and hours without sunshine. This needs massive backup running at tick over to cover load balancing with is a nightmare with more than 10% green.

        Grid watch is an independent site using UK the data stream in real time.


  69. Haut August 23, 2015 at 5:09 AM

    I think they should ban volcanoes too!

    • Brian Donovan September 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM

      You have to if you want nuclear power. Get it?

    • Brin Jenkins October 31, 2015 at 9:59 AM

      Actually I like the CO2 they produce, brilliant fruit and veg grown on Sicily under Etna. Far superior to Malta without this blessing.

  70. PacE August 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM

    Vogtle, using their own numbers, pencils out at 15 cents per kWH, IF they hit budget, and that would be rare.

    The calculations using Vogtle data are here, all exposed calculations, no hanky panky


  71. Haut September 2, 2015 at 4:01 PM

    The ultimate power is Nuclear Fussion, not Fission, the reason, so many nuclear “Paid” or sold out scientists start unwarranted fear by nuclear is because the NWO want to keep developing nations poor,so they can be raped & pillaged, just like climate warming BS, & migrants, look @ the scource of the problem, Israeli instigate wars, IE, Iraq, Syria, 9-11, uss Liberty both world wars, ect on & on. The world sees your propaganda now & false flags! Peace & Prosperity for “ALL”

  72. Brian Donovan September 10, 2015 at 8:46 PM

    The ultimate power is the sun. Solar and wind are available the cheapest of any energy source now.

    Solar, wind, hydro, waste to fuels, eletric hybrid cars, and synthetic fuels are all we will ever need. Infinite distributed free fuel, far cheaper, cleaner and safer.

    Wake up folks, stop falling for the fossil and nuclear pr.

    • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM

      Prove it with physics and economics.

  73. Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:02 PM

    Its not Germany its, JEWMANY!

  74. CaptD September 17, 2015 at 6:25 PM

    Update post

    I saw this posted on another blog and wanted to share it with the readers:

    “The deal will see a subsidy paid to the operators of Hinkley C in the order of £92.50 per MWh for 35 years. For EDF energy this is a major climb down, as at the start of negotiations they were looking for up to £140/MWh for 40 years. However, from the Government’s point of view this is still twice the present wholesale rate for electricity and higher than the rate of subsidy given to renewables such as biomass and onshore wind. Indeed its entirely probable that sources such as offshore wind and solar will be at a similar cost (£110-100/MWh) by the time Hinkley C starts operating.”


    • Brian Donovan September 20, 2015 at 7:15 PM
      • CaptD September 20, 2015 at 9:35 PM

        Brian D. — I thought that was correct but you links make it more “believable” for the Pro-Nuclear people that are in denial.

        • Brian Donovan September 20, 2015 at 11:23 PM

          I doubt we reach them, but there are other people reading these comments.

          • CaptD September 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM

            Brian — I sure hope so, otherwise many of us are wasting “years of effort” bringing some much need perspective to the discussion about using Nuclear and/or replacing it with Solar (of all flavors).

    • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:40 PM

      You do realise that you are posting on CFACT, right? Ever bother to see what the focus of the site is? Then again, it is entertaining to see rabid opinion unsupported by verifiable data put forth as mantra. 🙂

  75. Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 8:30 PM

    Here are some interesting numbers. There are no solar panel powered solar panel factories, but there sure are some powered by tax dollars!

    Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
    Solar $0.9680
    Wind $0.0525
    Geothermal $0.0125
    Nuclear $0.0031
    Biomass Power $0.0020
    Hydroelectric $0.0008
    Natural Gas. $0.0006
    Petroleum Liquids $0.0006
    Coal $0.0006


  76. Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM

    I have to say that I am amused by the effort and zeal put forth by people that think they’re saving the planet. If they put one tenth of that energy into understanding the physics, chemistry, engineering and economics involved there would be little foothold for political agendas. “Facts are stubborn things,” said John Adams. It takes way more acreage to produce a megawatt of electrical power, and after round about 100 years of development, there still are no solar panel powered solar panel factories.

  77. Brian Donovan September 27, 2015 at 12:32 AM

    The pro nuclear folks will talk about “facts” for a whole page long comment, but they don’t have any.

    Nuclear power is 4 times the cost of solar, wind and renewable according to Lazard,

    Nuclear is short of fuel in 10 years according to the IAEA

    Nuclear will cause millions of cancer deaths and health problems according to Busby and many others.

    Nuclear takes ten years on average to site and build, solar in a week.

    Nuclear mining is the dirty secret. 100,000 tons of toxic tailings per ton of fuel,mega tons of contaminated water as well.

    Nuclear waste will bankrupt us. a million years of storage. dry casks storage being the best at the moment, costs 2M$ every 30-100 years, has to be guarded.

    Solar is doubling like the semiconductor industry it was spawned from. in 15 years at this rate it will be producing several time the world electricity and energy demands. Synthetic fuels can store the excess and fill in the chemical, reserve, and transport needs. That’s just one option.

    That’s the facts.

    Now the nuclear folks will talk about the facts some more.

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:02 PM

      And you leave out the “dirty secret” of the mining and nasty chemicals involved in the production of solar panels. How conveeeeeenient.

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:05 PM

      Vaporware claims. Opinion unsupported by facts. Nuclear waste will bankrupt us? Got numbers?

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:07 PM

      Show me a solar installation that was “sited” and installed in a week. Not even on a house as a consumer.

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:43 PM

      In psychology, it’s called projection: when you see your own faults in others that really have none. Good show posting a “whole page long comment” full of opinion easily proved wrong.

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:47 PM

      Gotta love the toxicity of gallium arsenide, used in the production of the most efficient solar panels! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15276420

    • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 8:57 PM

      The semiconductor industry is succumbing to the classic s-curve of every technology. Moore’s law was a decent enough model for the beginning of semiconductor development, but it does not extrapolate. https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors/Does-Moores-law-follow-the-classic-S-curve-and-we-are-currently-cresting-over-into-the-long-slow-but-keeping-with-general-productivity-gains-growth-in-transistor-densities

    • Brian Donovan September 29, 2015 at 4:48 PM

      Then the pro nuclear folks can handle the doubling that the semiconductor industry has managed for 50 years. Solar PV is not just from the semiconductor industry, it’s a part of it, and benfits from much of the progress in the electronics part of the industry. Solar PV has doubled about every 2 years, for 20 years. It can keep doubling till it’s 80% of the total energy demand of the USA, and then it likely will level off to maintenance and growth levels.

      90% of the world solar pv market is silicon solar cells. No rare earths, no gallium arsenide.. Fuku and Chernobyl blew up, just as all reactors will, if we are using that logic. The thin film solar panels that do use Gallium arsenide, use tiny amount, less than the electronics industry. They are used in concentrates so they also use 1000 times less of the material. Fear uncertainty and doubt are big pr strategies. Anything toxic solar uses. nuclear generates order of magnitude more.

      The USA and EU have made solar pv at least 1000 times cleaner than nuclear. But China does it dirty, like everything they do.

  78. Joe Dick September 27, 2015 at 11:49 AM

    Much anger, harsh words, and puerile insults have ensued after I posted links demonstrating that solar in the US gets 96 cents per kilowatt hour in subsidies. Since digging into lengthy government reports and doing some math is beyond some of my detractors, Let’s start by showing a piece of the pie-chart:

    In the UK, for instance, homeowners with solar panels are subsidized to the tune of 12.47 pence, about 20 cents US. That’s just for the power they produce after installation. The pie quickly fills the tin once you factor in the various tax credits depending on your country’s policies for installation, government rebates, subsidies to companies, etc., all amortized over the expected life of the product – which may be optimistic as well.


  79. Joe Dick September 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM

    I wonder how proud solar advocates will be when the bubble bursts from subsidies, and they get pegged by the contracts they signed when the subsidies end:

    “Here’s how this dubious business works. Solar-leasing companies install rooftop systems (which often cost tens of thousands of dollars) at no upfront consumer cost. Homeowners rent the panels for 20 years at rates that typically escalate over time but are initially cheaper than power from the grid. Investors get to pocket the myriad state and federal subsidies while homeowners are promised hundreds of dollars annually in savings on their electric bills.

    Sounds fantastic. The catch is that the teaser rates could shoot up if government subsidies are scaled back.”


  80. Joe Dick October 3, 2015 at 10:28 PM

    Right now I want to say… .https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

  81. Brian Donovan October 10, 2015 at 7:52 PM

    Notice the pro nuclear attempt to change the subject?

    Skip the Joe Dick pics and go to my comment.

    Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years for just 2% of the world’s energy demand, 4 times the cost of solar or wind, creates billion of tons of deadly mining tailing, takes ten year to site and build, and it’s wastes must be stored for a million years. Longer than humans have existed.

    Solar, wind and renewables have free ample distributed fuels forever.

  82. Jake Darwin October 22, 2015 at 6:58 PM

    People here are all of them wrong. Nuclear power is a fake.

  83. CaptD October 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM

    I think everyone will be interested in reading how Germany is both lowering the cost of their electrical rates and going Renewable at the same time despite what the Anti-Green Bloggers are saying.

    Yes, they are using very modern Coal Generation (while at the same time scrapping their older Coal generation) to assist them as they add ever more Renewable generation that is starting to replace even their Coal generation) AND they are making money doing it by spinning off their Renewable technology.

    Said another way, the US Coal Industry is not keeping up with “cleaner” Coal technology improvements and are at the same time crying “poor me,” seeking ever more Government handouts for themselves.

    They want to keep playing US for being Energy Ignorant..

    German Power Costs Seen Dropping for Fourth Year: Energy


  84. Brian January 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM

    The whole article is a blatant deception.

    they don’t include the massive acres needed for nuclear mining, nor waste storage for a million years.

    Solar panels require zero land. They fit just perfectly on rooftop and parking lots: more than enough land.

    Offshore wind likewise uses ZERO land.

    What a surprise.

    Did you know the trillion dollar nuclear industry spends billions of dollar per year on pr and influence?

    Have you ever wondered where that goes?

    BTW, nuclear power is short of fuels in ten years.. really.

    The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
    “As we look to the future, presently known resources
    fall short of demand.”
    Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
    fig 20 also show shortfall.

    Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.

  85. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM

    ..Civilization /democracy and enlightenment has been under 3 stage (genocidal) muz-lumic attack, for 1400 hundred years (1. infiltrate 2. subvert 3. destroy) and you may know their insane “voodoo-reason” WHY………. Their mosque-promised future , is not here (on earth) and for them to get to planet-pedo / rapist-heaven, you (any non-moslum ) is just in the way. Buy the gun and vote wisely (and at least as often as the cadavers (and computers) did last time). Please fix any mistakes you find (there will be some spilling mistakes) then add your wisdom, and (for the sake of everyone’s children) highlight / copy and re post / send on, to anyone trustworthy, or currently in a defense position, to prod Mt Flaccid. (As his snoozing /kneeling position, is casting a very disrespectful shadow, over all the graves of all past (pro-active) patriots.)……..Solstice regards, Bill. P.S. Yes the sun, (viewed from the northern hemisphere) after appearing to be 2 days buried / dead, will rise again and people will rejoice. Because increasing-temperature, means increasing-Co2, which means, plants (food) will “spring to life / rise again” .. Well goodness gracious me, which astrologer farmer / ancestor / chocolate-rabbit, first noticed that? ..And to get the media to do anyone’s bidding, you just have to pay them. As you see now (everyday) the socialist-media-prostitutes, target anyone /anything productive, or civilized ( valuable in any way) to be dumbed-down, distracted, demonized, dis-armed and dogged into disarray. .Plus any mind-numbingly uneconomic (money-wasting) project, unwanted, unneeded etc. will be relentlessly pushed… I.E. Ethanol / halal / wind turbines /”refugees” / its your fault / BLM / and any minute’ (normal) seasonal-temperature-variation, will suddenly be a “climate” disaster etc….. etc……………..At the end of this southern summer The El-Ninyo cycle has again caused, temporary choral-bleaching to some reefs near the equator, but the media-shrill is that its a “95%” disaster caused by Coal”. But the tourist industry says, that is 95% muzi-media bullshit, the free-reef is actually still the best in the world , coral bleaching is natural and stop trying to kill the jobs of every employee in the $5 billion tourism industry, (as well as in the free black-gold industry. You Fn-stupid, socialist-CoUNTS.). …… ………….. Which can only mean one thing, you and are being conned, or the media is being bribed / black-mailed (or both), to be part of the muzzee-mardhi-mission, to kill you (and yours) off. So yet millions more will die, needlessly (and cruelly in the meantime), but muz-lam’s Stage 3. which will never be totally successful, (so mahdi will never cum) so it will all be for nothing / fun. (but anyone sane, knows that already).

  86. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM

    …Muz-lam in action, has always been, to convert in-bred losers, into confident-rapists / murderers. The muz-lumic motivating “reward list”, (then and still is today, 7 levels) includes their base mercenary pay, of 72 black eyed (Jewish) virgins / river of wine / bigger (than big) new Cok / raping something (anything ) 100 times a day / 300 sexy boys / 4 juvenile de-clitted beasts of burden (wives) / etc. etc. a bit like “Scientology-heven”, but on the “gear,” (their surplus (bulk) muzi-“ice”). And as this cause/effect reward is not testable, (or provable), it is still today religiously-indoctrinated into “eager-to-be-certain/deluded”, muzi-wankers. (as well as appealing to any other loser, who is also religiously-seeking “mental-certainty”, (by avoiding-reality) / or gang-safety / or a better chance for them to masturbate, into something still warm (gangie-slops) or to keep a eye-out for any opportunity, to bang-the-brains out of a discarded-head …(but I would never say that, (so you didn’t hear that from me))…….. .But I did heard on the ABC “NEWS” media …(the WWE of “conflict-resolution”)….. …They have just “reported” …That, SPOONS make you fat?, but forks are OK.? (what a relief)……. ……..The world is now spinning too fast and birds are now flying backwards and the Jews did it? (bastards)……..The now “financially-independent” Al Gore, promised New York will be under water by 2014 ? (that’s right he did) ……… ……………. Wind farms fund them-selves ? WTF ?. (even the abandoned ones?.) pleased be warned, experts still can’t agree, on whether half of what I write, is even meant to be funny ……… ….After originally plagiarizing from other “religions/cults”, (a lot of other’s “people-control ideas” including a “moon” god/dog) muz-slam has lifted physical and psychological warfare / torture / stupidity / cruelty , to a unprecedented new level. It presents today, as now the richest band of deluded (murder-glorification,) sewer-slidal thieves. Ever……………… It is/ has, always been devious, deluded and foot-shootingly destructive, with an insane, criminal street-gang-mentality intention, of existing only to cripple, anything that looks likely to prolong, a civilized, or on-going future (for anyone), and still today, demands infidel-genocide, (as a prerequisite to their motivational-invention, “mahdi”, to “arrive” with a new replacement planet, loaded with free sex-slaves. This expected fantasy-planet, (with no jails or ugly goats), that their un-elected, un-electable, circle-jerking Imams, still promise them today. Plus their benchmark-model, (for all activity), is a notorious pedophile-gangster (who is still giving (all) bearded-creeps a bad name) ……… And so, who of you will continue to tolerate, their “Victim-card” waving ? The muzi, on the boat, go, WAVE wave WAVE, wave WAVE wave, WAVE wave WAVE, the Invaders on the boat go, Wave wave Wave, slash SHOOT stab & KICK.) ………….Did you know ? under the muz-lumic DIARRHEA LAW, (their west African slaving codes) any muzi, can kill anyone (including you) legally ? Everything Hitler and Hussani did in WW2, was legal (unethical, inhuman and disgusting, but sharia “legal”).

  87. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM

    …Modern scientific advancement has saved (and continue to better) millions of lives, (mostly formally the primitive and scientifically backward) but in the media, every (mahdi-slowing) good deed, deserves punishment,?…… Someone always has to be to blamed and shamed (and they definitely (defiantly) target civilized people ). But muz-lam, the biggest enemy of a civilized future, the deliberate crippler of sanity, humanity, democracy and enlightenment (plus systematic pedophilia), and whose sole purpose is to destroy the planet, gets a pampered run? (plus any / every, ( complicit), union-extortion event, will just be “industrial-action”). There are now books on unionist traitors, listing the sabotage of our troops (on the waterfront) in WW2. (unions and hitler had / have, socialism in common) But I digress……….. …… The (religiously-camouflaged) Trojan-camel ( muzi-mahdi-madness) is now endorsing / enforcing, with endless media-goobli-gook distractions like, Look, we just gave hitler another peace prize. Isn’t that great ? (And you will-say its great, or we will get the media to character-assassinate you too, you rabid-racist, bigoted-balding, truth-telling non-socialist you) .. …….. …………………. . Muz-lam has always been a (pyramid-scam) fantasy dead-end, (everyone loses/dies) but today, to over 1.6 billion (1 billion, being “successfully” kept as illiterate-zombies) but to all the glorious muz-lumic “martyrs-in-waiting” (cretin / pawns), it’s all still a “real” preoccupation-compulsion. Still trying to be the “perfect-storm” (that never features on any media weather-report)………Nowadays you are always blamed for everything, but most of the insane killing has always been between the muzi-Stage 1. (loafers/sluts) and the muzi-Stage 2 or 3. (over-eager rapists / murderers). This is because, there is no such thing as a “normal” muzi. (All are either too muzi, or not-enough muzi), and they have been happily killing each other, for 14000 years because they both are promised (believe) they are the ones, getting the virgins/wine etc. ………………….. …… This tradition of self-culling cannibalism, has kept most of the world reasonably safe, but now, with unlimited fossil-oil funds, is turbo-charging a political-correct, “deceive and disarm” / “break your will / and your reserves, ” (their ji-had stage 2. strategy), and now by also funding (co-opting) other, like-minded useful-idiots , thieves/ parasites, (any socialist rent-a-mob , who hope / believe, that the koran-codile will eat them last) (if they think at all, Fn useless-idiots) has boosted islumic-insanity (foot-shooting destruction) to a new disgusting, world-wide level. And so, the ever-vicious (and pointless) muz-lumic subversion / cruelty / deception / bombings / shootings /slashing / stabbings / etc. continues. And as you hear endlessly in the “media”,,,,,, Its all your fault. ..,,,,,,,,,,,, ..

  88. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM

    . You aren’t the only one been relentlessly sucker-punched, by these devious-drongos and their socialist-pawn media-helpers. But their mahdi wont come (with the virgins etc) until all Jews (in particular the 7th century ones) are gone. To get to that point, now needs, the subversion of world economic-productivity to basically collapse, this will be attempted by controlling the market, (not playing the market ) and by trying to cripple anything, that employs or generates, or protects , via verb-ling /sabotage /spoiling etc. so the uncivilized mosque-mad, muzi-canabals, can rule the rubble, kill / eat, each other until mahdi cums. A welcome change from them ke-babbing Christians. …..NOTE. These Necrophiliac-rapists (“good-bye-sex”, with butchered “bin-liner babes”) does have a 6 hr limit, they are not pigs …no wait…. ……. ………………… And like all complicit mo-slimes, O’vomit has done his bit, using useful-idiot (socialist-demo-rats, fools-as-tools) to deliberately waste $$$$$ 19 Squillion , tax-payers dollars (that’s 19 thousand billion) (and each billion is 1,000 million.) more than this POS POTUS muzi puppet’s socialist / communist / muzlamist (whatever) government, has stolen from your “soon to be starving/ fighting for their life” grand-children. Competing with not only new subversives, migrating in to USA, legally at a rate, 4 time the recommended / sustainable level, plus also the swarm of undocumented non-taxpaying illegals (who will be (democrat-allowed to vote for) a free-lunch, at your expense)….. …………Already, America has only a big pile of financial-vandalizism / society-vandalism, and now (like Europe) a fatalistic muzlami-tsunami invasion of towel-headed, cotton-brained, contemptuous supremicist, nutters, blocking the roadways with their bums in the air (and their hand deep in your wallet) to show for it …………AND so now you know, why O’vomit had/is, been shooting USA in the foot and why today’s moslums, are still fighting for a 7th century fantasy, (and still trying to eliminate and replace, a 7th century flat-planet ?). ………. And your children won’t learn why, by consuming a TV-version of reality, (at home, or away) or by kissing stones / or have some slimy muzi-funded, socialist-teacher, pushing their heads in the sand, 5 times a day. ……..DRINK MORE ..(and you will enjoy this more)… …….Every sane-leader (since Winston Churchill) has been demonized (in the media) as a muzi-o-phobe / voodoo-o-phobe/ nazi-o-phobe……….TODAY…. I.E. Abbot, Golding, Farage, Trump, Gilders, .etc…… ………….Every sane person knows that Socialism is an unsustainable totalitarian-croc, but Muz-lam, is an extensively, (and expensively-decorated and disguised), marble-encrusted, square-wheel (with an unfix-able-puncture) and has never worked anywhere, at any time, (or could even survive) without continuous, petty, brutal, 7th century, intimidation, cruelty, stolen funds, and mass propaganda / hypnosis. Yes muz-lam is the turd with no clean end. Millions of passed moslums (and millions more assorted non-moslums), totaling around 270 million already, burned to death / buried alive, flogged or stoned to death etc. Anyone still remaining now, is usually blind-sides by the incessant media-propagandist “in-joke”, that muz-lam was a religion / ethical (or beneficial). Conveniently burying most of the 29,000 pointless muz-lumic terror attacks (your time /money / empathy wasting) distractions since 9/11….. ….. But now, with muzi having access to unlimited fossil-oil money, plus unlimited use of socialist flag-waving union-thugs / (and suddenly rich) un-employables, means that “useful-idiot” control of your sanity / mind / sustenance, is well under way. The Brussels/ Paris /London type bombings is not about killing, that is just a mind-intimidating (but incidental) headline. It is a “break the will” ji-had (and in particular the economy) of the civilized, so expenditure on Police / soldiers / courts / medicos will now cost 10/100 times more and for what ? Muzi will just punch another baby (in another pram) somewhere else, like they have always done. … ………… …

  89. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM

    ..They don’t need extra money, Muz-lamic fossil-feuled-fookwits are now so rich, they now have 2 meccas (the original one in the north that the old mosques point to) and now the sand-pit theme-park in the south, where last year 2,000 muzi-zombies trampled each other to death (while “religiously” kissing stones), plus then the beheading of a few dozen more essential scape-goats, (allah ? was needing even-more ? muz-lumic, petty-brutality ?) The Calip-HATE (its an ‘IN ” joke, get it?) caliphate, Call-it-hate ? Oh why do I bother ……………Still trying to totally destroy civilizations (enlightenment & democracy) condoning cancer-in-communities and lipstick-on-goats .. MUZ-SLAM… Rape, gang rape (and did I mention 1400 years of total (dead or alive) rape jihad ?)..or halal/haha (originally deliciously rich (and fat), Harem-sourced/sauced meat) ..( now a $2 trillion, tax scam). But the media’s camouflaging of systematic (muz-lumic) cruelty, (and always, all for fictitious mahdi) is the worlds biggest crime………… …….. ………… The mid-east, fossil-oil $$$$ windfall, is never ever “media-demonized”, but fossil-coal is ? This is Economic (Media-bias) money and manpower subversion, at its most blatant …………. ………………Both fossils are only here now, because during life’s early evolution, Co2, was at 4,000 ppm. Today, at just 400 ppm ( rising at 1 millionth every 5 years). Media says this is a disaster and all life sustaining-western-productivity (particularly utilizing free black gold) should stop. (That is how corrupt the media is today). Today in submarines, sailors breathe Co2 at 1,000 ppm, with no adverse effect because Co2 is an essential trace (life / food growing) gas, (that turbo-charged the evolution of life on this (then very hot) but cooling planet). Oil and coal, seen now both as the fossil remains, of the darling twins, (COALIN and OILAVE), from their formative / baby , (hot) evolution years. Co2 always follows temperature change, observable in winter, when Co2 follows the temperature down to, and at 150ppm, plants stop growing . When the season (temperature) changes up, the co2 level (plant food) rushes back up and (plant) spring, is here again. Farmers know this, (green-house managers deliberately pump in extra Co2 to boost plant growth) but the media makes sure, their (any) real-world knowledge, is ridiculed. Since the last mini ice-age, the sun has been warming the world at 0.8* per century ( with or without us)…… And since the un-corrupted data from satellites , (as expected), no detectable warming for 18 years and (balloon) troposphere-temperature readings are now back up to where they were was, 58 years ago (at the start of Al Bore’s “global-cooling” scare campaign ) and the media probably knows that too, but I digress again…………., …………………Demonizing Co2 (like the halal scam) is just about crippling the world economy (and development) . (all for the muzi-welcoming of, mahdi) ….Everything a muzi does is for mahdi. Any “expected to be, trustworthy” body, that has not previously explained the muzi-Santa “mahdi”. to you, is probably corrupt / unworthy (or both)…………….. ……………

  90. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM

    As always, cold kills far more people than heat. (and heat mostly only “kills” when muz-lumic cretins “religiously”-refuse to drink water, on a hot day. duh). The founder of Greenpeace now states everyone would be better off if the world was a bit warmer, but who can control the sun?. Muz-lamic stupidity was also why ebola killed so many moslums in Africa. Squeezing the pus out of all cadavers before burial (what brain-dead idiots) . Plus there is the muz-lam permitted, “good-bye” Sex . IE. Your best wife dies, you got a 6 hr, necrophilic rape-limit, (to get those last shots away / to push-your-pus back the other way). …You’re a muzi ?. What ya gonna do ? The opportunity to pleasurably (conveniently), combining, (co-joining) the fukee, and the fukoor) the rest is history. ( And how funny is that ? ).. ……… …….. ….The wholesale (saudi/soros-funded) socialist-like corruption, of formerly-trusted, EU / UN type , any overview-national / international entities, (plus councils, guilds, universities, banks etc). means the dope with the 50ft Vatican wall, (originally built to keep out moslums) now advises muzi and micks, are “one” again, and the AMA in Australia is trying to control national-security. WTF ?…… Media ethics (?) are now so bad, that they now insist that everyone is Syrian and muzi-invaders are all (product-branded) sKILLed-immigrants. (but “kill” is usually in the fine print). ……… …………………… Or do Muzi-mass-murderers, really only stay muzi, for the music ? (the muzi on the bus, go bang bang bang, etc.) ??? According to the media, up is now down, right is now left, round is now flat and as usual, it’s all your fault………. and can only be fixed by you, maxing out your children’s credit card, ( to feed and house the current mass of swarming, deluded and depraved, ji-hobbist, muzi-rapist / genocidal-assassins / wasters-in-waiting, (and who the media now insist, all deserve a peace prize)…………………. .MMMMMMMMMMMM …………………..More BEER Now ………. Mos-lam can /does / is, still mentally-mangling morons today, and this is why WAR has been continuous / visible and normal, in every north/west-african / southern-europe and mid-east country, since muz-lam was invented. Anyone who mentions the words “peace” or “armistice” knows nothing about muz-lam. These words have been obsolete, since the invention of muz-lam….as muz-lam is still cretinising (from birth if possible) all impressionable (mentally-juvenile) males, with promised, fictitious, base-sexual misogynist rewards. And that all they have to do worldwide was/ is (in a strict 3 stage sequence) destroy anything that sustains productivity, civilization (and trust), kill all the non-moslums, for a fictitious reward, brought by a fictitious (but still mosque-promised), mussi-invented-santa, (mahdi/ madi/ mandy/ (what ever).) Who would replace this world with a flatter-than-flat, (planet-pedo) plate-(replacement)-planet, (at some future time, in their supremacist imagination)…….. ………….Muz-lam is basically a psychotic, self-perpetuating, Pyramid scam / maniacal merry-go-round. Everyone loses, and its for the benefit of no-one, anywhere, ever………

  91. Bill Turner April 4, 2016 at 6:05 PM

    …Humanitarian Patriots will be called on again (to shoot them again). Then the media (with the freedom given to them by the sacrifices of passed Patriots) will then re-demonize patriots (again) .. ….. Muz-lam is the problem, always was, always will be. Remember the old old Arab warning (from the 8th century ?) never trust a muzzee? Just as valid(Ali) today……. muzi still say Christian-Crackling is to die for (and you can’t tell it not pork). Time to get a gun and start practicing shooting vermin. …………… You are the enemy, because muz-lam says so, (plus you are between them and their promise of unlimited raping. Have happy Easters, while you can. (before the war becomes so visible again that even the media will have to eat their own shit-pie again). The sharia slavery-codes, do target you. And still so today, muzlam (with pre-teen “strolling /stroller-bombers”) is now also targeting the killing of any valuable real-world people like teachers / doctors / nurses / firemen / police etc., ( anyone productive or remotely human), that appears to be working for a sustainable future). …… .Not that any bomb-laden child-pawn, will ever know what radio-controlled deceive was planted in their back-pack (or pram) …………….. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ……..Remember bin-laden, (had bin skippin-school) and ended up “binned without a bitch” ? because he couldn’t wait (or count) for stage 3. The kolonic, koranic war-sequence is very specific 1. then 2. and then 3. (the mass-killings). Only then, maybe the virgins. So Bin bin crying, (and yes, muz-lam is that petty.)…. …..HALF-WAY MATE….. Take a break with beer No 3/4/5. The more disgusting details can wait till you catch up ……….. .(proceed slowly)……….. Promoted now also, by formally trusted (but now corrupt) international-entities and media (also now, even the medical-unions), actually any parasitic, political-players who need money (or votes) and are willing to take, the now unlimited-bribes on offer, (from the fossil-oil rich, middle-east muzi-billionaires). Who are all eager to get the “extra-virgin” virgins, by funding more cretin schools, hypnosis-halls (mosques). ( The Ever-Mauling, Muz-lam, was never about humanity, democracy, enlightenment or this planet, in fact the opposite, always has been just to motivate a sewer-slideal mafia-mass, of maniacal mass-murdering (and still is) assassins-in-waiting (for stage 3 )…………… “religion” (?) of peace (?). don’t hear that anymore, because it was obviously just muzi-funded, media Bull-shitting … That’s almost as stupid as saying humans are able to control the sun’s temperature knob (they don’t say that any more either) its now “(natural) climate-change” …..( but you are still to blame for anything the sun does.)…………. ………. ………… Personal “religious freedom” means, if you want to believe the world is square (with 5 corners) go right ahead, (and most constitutions allows that). But what any ethical-civilization doesn’t allow, is forcing 3rd party-adherence to this sort of nonsense, ( by any mafia, masquerading as / calling itself, a “personal-religious-belief”)………. NOTE. muzi-zombies have no right of personal religious-freedom, productive-education, civilized-association, (just assassination) or of freedom of thought (or speech). If you ever see “ex-moslums” on the street /on mass, (without a bag on their heads) shouting free at last, free at last . Get a coat, (as hell is about to freeze over)…NOTE AGAIN Taqiyya (bare-faced lying to infidels), is (in muz-lam) compulsory. …. ……

  92. jjwestP07 May 11, 2016 at 12:19 PM

    Fukushima Reactors 1, 2, and 3 have gone into meltdown.Reactor 2 continues to leak into the ocean and ground water. They cannot find the leak

    • Michael Mann May 11, 2016 at 4:02 PM

      Check out this website for what is really happening at Fukushima, updated regularly http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

    • Joffan May 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM

      Hellooo, @jjwestP07:disqus, it’s 2016. Not 2011. None of what you say is current. Nor is the picture, which I’d guess was unit 4 in 2012, about the time that a whole gaggle of anti-nukes leaders decided it was going to kill the entire Northern hemisphere. Of course they were completely wrong at every level.

  93. Brian May 14, 2016 at 6:37 AM

    They took it down because it was false. The pro nuclear fan club always forgets the mining and wastes lands needed. The waste land is gone forever, a million years, for plants that only run a few decades. That’s quite a footprint.

    Then there is the 100,000 tons of toxic mining traiings per year per reactor
    60 years, 6M tons of toxic tailings per reactor. Already the mines have lost law suits for the birth defects and other health effects on the local people.
    Then there is the 20x overburden. Now that’s 120 M tons of mining wastes per reactor. We are in the order of magnitudes of coal mining.

    Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
    That means nuclear power needs more land than ground solar.

    Then they always compare land area of land solar and land wind.
    When we have enough rooftop, parking lots and roads we can partially cover to supply all the solar we need. and offshore wind can supply 5 times our total energy demand. ZERO LAND NEEDED.

    Not to mention nuclear power will be short of fuels in ten years, and costs 4 times avaible solar and wind.

    • Michael Mann May 14, 2016 at 11:24 AM

      There is almost 10 times the concrete and steel required per unit energy actually produced from wind than from nuclear energy. There is enough nuclear fuels for at least the next 80,000 years! If Brian is correct, and I am wrong, then he can stop wasting his time on comments and nuclear power will stop on it’s own because it will not have fuel to run… You have to wonder when a poster doesn’t believe his own propaganda.

    • Brian May 14, 2016 at 4:20 PM

      You have to store the wastes in concrete. Dry casks have to be replaced every 30 years, for 100,000 years. that’s 30,000 60 ton dry casks for each of the 60 dry casks each reactor produces.

      It’s amazing when the pro nuclear folks can’t even accept what the pro nuclear IAEA pr agency tells us. 10 years till we are short of uranium. But the pro nuclear folks deny,then evade, then make up stories about seawater, and throirum, and breeder reactors. Future tech to the rescue.

      Pub1104_scr.pdf From the IAEA. Search it folks, see for yourself. It’s sure aint 80,000 years, is it.
      “As we look to the future, presently known resources
      fall short of demand.”
      Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
      fig 20 also show shortfall.
      Wind mounts can be reused. Radioactive nuclear concrete not so much.
      The chart they took down pretend that the land between the turbines was used up,when it’s farmed and grazed.

      Solar pv panels are made from the three most common and recyclable elements in the crust: Oxygen, Silicon and aluminum. You can already sell your old panels to recyclers. 95% is recycled. most of its is glass, second most aluminum, plus a small amount of adhesive that are gassified and burned for energy and silicon wafers which are being re coated and reused.

    • Michael Mann May 14, 2016 at 7:05 PM

      Brian replies to Brian but he keeps telling the same disproven memes, 1. solar power is actually much more expensive than nuclear energy. Off shore wind is also expensive and takes much more material per megawatt of energy produced. If Brian truly believed nuclear energy will run out of fuel in 10 years why would he bother to campaign against it?

      • Brian May 14, 2016 at 8:20 PM

        Wrong. 50 lbs per 250Watts. 200 lbs per Kwp. About 10Wp per kg.

        Compare to a nuclear power plant and it’s fuel needs. 1GW, 10GWp solar, 1 Mt solar panels. 30+ years.

        Nuclear fuel. 70Kt 500 plants, about 140tons per year per npp. 4 Kt fuel 30 years. *100,000 = 420 Mt of ore for 30 years run time.

        When you add the reactors, the waste storage, it’s easily over 1000 Mt for 30 years of 1GW for nuclear. 1000 times more material, and the solar panels are recyclable. 95% recycable.

  94. ROYSTOLL2 July 15, 2016 at 3:19 PM

    Portraying “Global Warming” which I guess now is called “Climate Change” which these special interest groups have ginned up as an oncoming catastrophe, is the biggest and most widespread fraud ever foisted on humanity. World-wide, it has caused the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs and has lowered the standard of living for millions of people. Out of the hundreds of predictions and forecasted events that this climate cabal has used as “Evidence” for their cause, not one has come true. The facts have blown every single claim to smithereens. What they are trying to sell to everybody, is that if you contribute, either voluntarily or by force, money to this group of crooked politicians, professional environmental groups, and paid off “scientists”, they will change the weather for the whole planet. How many times in history, have you heard this scam, In their complete arrogance, they have yet to prove by any facts, that an increase in the gas, carbon dioxide causes an increase in temperature or if an increase in temperature causes an increase in carbon dioxide levels. Here is one more clue on this claim that this is called “settled” science. Every single person or group in this agenda driven science in being paid money based on this conclusion which is a huge conflict of interest. When in your entire life have you seen people threatened if they did not agree with their version of psuedo facts? The point that I am trying to make is with all of the information available on line from research by everybody, as well as all of the knowledge in print that show actual facts which disagree with their biased conclusions, why would these folks suppress them or discredit the authors. The reason is that it is a carefully crafted lie based on discredited computer models generated by the UN’s IPCC. If you use their computer models the result is always “Global Warming”. If you use the actual temperatures and real factual measurements it shows negligible if any climate change. The entire goal of this campaign is to destroy big business as well as capitalism in general and force the world to go to their approved renewable energy sources. They have to subsidize every single renewable energy project and common sense would tell you that if they were viable on their own, they would be in use by the private sector.

  95. iashagilber April 6, 2017 at 6:34 AM

    Need urgent loan to solve your financial needs, we offer reliable loan at an interest rate applicable to all loans is (3%), if you are interested contact us via ([email protected]) with the information below
    Your full name: _____
    Country: _____
    City: _____
    Address: _____
    Amount Needed: _____
    duration: _____
    Loan Purpose: _____
    Monthly income: _____
    Age: _____
    Sex: _____
    Occupation: _____
    Telephone number: _____
    Mr Frank Rogers Website;http://honestloan.ulcraft.com/

Comments are closed.